immigration reform. that is the course that is most effective. host: do you agree with the president? is the course that is most appropriate. >> do you agree with the president when he says that the only way to get it done is by step-by-step? the day, ind of think it is important for a bill to be brought to the floor of the house of representatives and frost to find something that can be passed at conference committee. for talking with us. the houses in early for session. virginia foxx to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our

chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we pause in your presence and ask guidance for the men and women of the people's house. enable them, o god, to act on what they believe to be right and true and just, and to do so in ways that show respect for those with whom they disagree. send your spirit of peace upon our nation. endow the members of this house and all our governmental leaders with the wisdom to respond with whatever policies and laws might be needed to ensure greater peace and security in our land. bless us this day and every day and may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory. amen.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her pproval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? mr. daines: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? mr. daines: madam speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. fudge. ms. fudge: thank you, madam speaker. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. today i rise to honor the 50th anniversary of my good friends and fellow arkansans benny and nelda speaks. they met in mountain home, arkansas. nelda having returned home from business college in springfield, missouri. they were married on december 6, 1963. they have one daughter, two grandchildren and blessed with one great grandson. madam speaker, it's no easy task making it to the 50-year anniversary. it takes great commitment, a willingness to compromise and listen and a loving spirit.

these qualities serve as a testament to the rest of us. mr. crawford: they truly care about arkansas and devote much of their time giving back to the community. i thank the speaks for their friendship over the years. i wish them a happy 50th anniversary this december 6. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you, madam speaker.

because of the affordable care act. in fact one constituent wrote me reently after receiving a letter from his insurance company, after looking at the plans offered through covered california, he was able to find coverage that was both more affordable and better for him and he told me that he does not want to put insurance companies back in charge and pay higher premiums for less coverage. yet every time republicans vote to repeal or dismantle the affordable care act, they make it perfectly clear that charging women more for being a woman is ok, that denying victims of domestic violence coverage is ok, and allowing insurance companies to increase premiums, to increase profits is ok. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? mr. daines: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. daines: madam speaker, this weekend the boozman high school girls cross-country team will be in portland, oregon to run in the nike cross national championship. these dedicated and talented young women have won seven consecutive montana class aa state championships and have competed for five consecutive years at the nike cross northwest regionals. this year after securing their seventh state championship, they came in first at the nike cross northwest regionals in boise, idaho. they will now advance and compete this saturday against high school runners from across the country at the nike cross nationals. as a graduate of boozman high school and a boozman hawk, i couldn't be more proud to see the boozman girls cross-country team representing montana at the nike cross nationals. i join all montanans in wishing them the very best on saturday. go, hawks. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the

gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. > thank you. ms. fudge: madam speaker, prior to the passage of the affordable care act, 23% of highians -- ohioans with incomes below 1 % of the poverty level were uninsured. thanks to the expansion of medicaid in my home state of ohio, all of the almost 600,000 residents who are uninsured are incomes below 138% of the federal poverty level will now have access to medicaid coverage. in my district alone, an additional 72,000 people became eligible for medicaid. and next monday, december 9, all of these individuals will be able to begin signing up for health care coverage that begins january 1. no longer will i receive calls from constituents like bran done

who told me he was too rich for medicaid but too poor for subsidies. this is the way affordable care act is designed to work. finally, all ohioans will have access to quality and affordable health care. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to an incredible man of faith, with the true calling and heart for serving the lord, wish yol wellington boone. he was ordained in the ministry in 1973. in that same year he married his childhood sweetheart, katherine. mr. broun: today bishop boone not only celebrates 40 years of ministry, but 40 years of loving -- of a loving marriage with his wife. in today's world it is unique

and certainly admirable to see a couple celebrate 40 years of marriage. their long lasting marriage is a testament to not only their commitment to each other, but their dedication to serving the lord. bishop boone's 40 years of leadership and service to ministry is also a tremendous accomplishment and one that deserves recognition. through his work bishop boone has faithfully led others in their quest to glorify and serve the lord. mr. speaker -- madam speaker, i ask you to join me in congratulating bishop boone as he celebrates 40 years of ministry and 40 years of marriage with his loving -- lovely wife, katherine. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. waxman: i rise as a member of the safe climate caucus to call attention to a new report

from the nation's premiere scientific body, the national academy of sciences. we typically associate climate change with gradual, longer term problems. according to the academy, climate change could also pose a risk of rapid hard to predict environmental changes that have the potential to cause widespread damage in the near term. the report warns that the collapse of the polar sea ice could send sea levels soaring. the destruction of the coral reefs could cause mass extinction of sea life, the elimination of summer sea ice in the arctic could alter the world's weather patterns. these tipping points could happen suddenly. it's reckless to do nothing in face of these threats. if there is a 10% chance that these threats would happen, it's irresponsible for us to ignore it.

dr. richard alley, one of the authors said, you can't see it coming. you can't prepare for it. congress is irresponsible if we don't take this issue seriously. to pass on our planet worthy of our children and grandchildren's future. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . the national park service -- i urge families and individuals across missouri to attend these hearings and oppose the obama administration's changes to our riverways. let me reiterate that i have said to the secretary of interior, sally jewell, and the director of the national park service, jonathan jarvis, that

we oppose the oppose this by limiting the public use of waterways. this will keep my constituents from enjoying the riverways that belong to them. mr. speaker, i urge my constituents to attend public meetings in salem and even kirkwood to show opposition to obama administration's park service' attempts to restrict ur access to our rivers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i want to thank congressman christopher smith for leading a codel to the philippines. i, along with congressman trent franks were members of the codel, and i want people to know that there is still great work to be done for our friends

in the philippines. this picture depicts some of the damages that we were able to see while we were there in a province of the philippines. this is another picture that shows actual homes. this is a usaid sign, and this is where people are dwelling at this time. the number one problem that they have right now is shelter. i would also add that our military has done an outstanding job. i had an opportunity to meet with many of our military people who were there with heavy equipment, and i commend them for what they have done. finally, i'd like to say this. we have h.r. 3602, which would accord people from the philippines in the united states, temporary protective status. this would allow them to stay here as opposed to go home where the income is less than $2 a day for more than 40% of the people. my hope is we can pass h.r. 3602. it does not give any pathway to citizenship. it will only allow them to send

money back home while they're here working in the united states. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. hultgren: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to congratulate the batavia high school bulldogs for winning their first-ever illinois state football championship. on saturday, november 30, batavia faced off against richard's high school which shares the same nickname. as the stadium in dekalb, an estimated 12,000 batavia fans where the quarterback threw for two touchdowns and the running back, anthony, ran for three more. both teams fought hard, but batavia prevailed, capping their virtually undefeated season with a 34-14 victory. commend coach dennis and the

entire bulldogs team for their hard work that went into a strong 13-1 season and the class 6-a state championship. go, bulldogs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 3309, which will soon be under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 429 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 3309. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 3309 which the clerk will report by title. he clerk: a bill amedamed -- to amend title 35, united states code, and the leahy-smith america invents act to make improvements and technical corrections and for other purposes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: today we are here to consider h.r. 3309, the innovation act. the enactment of this bill is something i consider central to u.s. competitiveness, job creation and our nation's future economic security. this bill takes meaningful steps to address the abusive practices that have damaged our patent system and resulted in significant economic harm to

our nation. during the last congress, we passed the america invents act. many view the a.i.a. as the most agree hencive overhaul of our patent system since the 1836 patent act. however, the a.i.a. was in many respects a prospective bill. the problems the innovation act will solve are more immediate and go to the heart of current abusive patent litigation practices. this bill builds on our efforts over the past decade. it can be said that this bill is the product of years of work. we have worked with members of both parties in both the senate and the house with stakeholders from all areas of our economy and with the administration and the courts to ensure an open, deliberative thoughtful process, we held several hearings and issued two public discussion drafts in may and september of this year which led to the formal introduction of the innovation act in october. i believe that it takes the necessary steps to address abusive patent litigation.

abusive patent litigation is a drag on our economy. everyone from independent inventors to startups to mid and large-sized businesses face this constant threat. the tens of billions of dollars spent on settlements and litigation expenses associated with abusive patent suits represent truly wasted capital. wasted capital that could have been used to create new jobs, fund r&d and create new innovations and technologies that promote the progress of science and useful arts. and that's what innovation is really about, isn't it? if you're able to create something, invent something new and unique, then you should be allowed to sell your product, grow your business, hire more workers and live the american dream. the innovation act puts forward reasonable policies that allow for more transparency and brings fundamental fairness to the patent system and the courts. the innovation act is designed to deal with systemic issues

surrounding abusive patent litigation as a whole and includes a number of provisions . within the past couple of years, we have seen an exponential increase in the use of weak or poorly granted patents against american businesses with the hopes of securing a quick payday. many of these abusive practices are focused not just on larger companies but against small and medium-sized businesses as well. these suits target a settlement just under what it would cost for litigation. knowing these businesses would want to avoid costly litigation and probably pay up. the patent system was never intended to be a playground for litigation extortion and frivolous claims. the innovation act contains needed reforms to address the issues that businesses of all sizes and industries face from patent troll-type behavior while keeping in mind several key principles, including targeting abusive behavior rather than specific entities, preserving valid patent

enpoursment rules, preserving patent property rights, promoting invention by independent and small businesses and strengthening the overall patent system. congress, the federal courts and the c.t.o. must take the necessary steps to ensure that the patent system lives up to its constitutional underpinnings. and let me be clear about congress' constitutional authority in this area. the constitution grants congress the power to create the federal courts and the supreme court has long recognized that the prescription of court procedure falls within the legislative function. to that end, the innovation act includes heightened pleading standards and transparency provisions, requiring parties to do a bit of due diligence upfwront before filing an infringement suit is just plain common sense. it not only reduces litigation expenses but saves the courts time and resources. . it makes our patent system stronger. the innovation act also provides

for more clarity surrounding initial discovery, case management, joinder, the common law doctrine of customer stays, and protecting i.p. licenses in bankruptcy. further, the bill's provisions are designed to work hand in hand with the procedures and practices of the judicial conference, including the rule's enabling act and the courts, providing themmle with clear policy guidance while ensuring we are not predetermining outcomes, and that the final rules and the legislation's implementation in the courts will be both deliberative and effective. today we are taking a pivotal step toward eliminating the abuses of our patent system. discouraging frivolous patent litigation, and keeping u.s. patent laws up-to-date. the innovation act will help fuel the engine of american innovation and creativity, help create new jobs, and grow our economy. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized.

mr. conyers: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: of course we are here to correct the problem of patent trolls, and we are, unfortunately, faced with a measure, h.r. 3309, that goes well beyond the issue of trolls nd with unfortunately weaken every single patent in america. i say this for several reasons. irst, 3309 fails to respond to the single most important problem facing our patent system today. the continuing diversion of patent fees. nearly $150 million in badly needed user fees have been , and d in fiscal 2013

it's estimated that $1 billion in fees have been diverted in the last two decades. this cannot go on. next, the bill's heightened pleading requirements will deny legitimate inventors access to the court in several critical respects. they will have an unfair impact against patent holders across the board, they are drafted in a one-sided manner that will prolong litigation. they are unnecessary because the courts are already addressing pleadings standards. the next thing i would bring to your attention is the bill's fee shifting requirements will favor wealthy parties and chill meritorious claims. i'm not surprised that the other side would be advancing something like this, but it's

shocking because the provision is drafted in an overly broad manner and will apply well beyond patent infringement actions. the next thing that i would point out is that the bill's tiss covery limitations are -- discovery limitations are counterproductive. limiting discovery prior to holding hearings to construe patent claims and determine their scope will delay litigation and lead to even greater expenses for the parties. mandates that3309 federal judiciary adopt a series of new rules and judicial changes that will make it more difficult for inventors to protect their patent rights. these changes are strongly opposed by the judicial conference of the united states.

the principal policymaking body that congress established to administer our federal court system. i spent my entire career on judiciary to help foster an independent judiciary that can resolve disputes between parties on a fair and dispassionate basis based on an evenhanded set of rules. there's little doubt that the federal judiciary as evidenced by its exleadingly deliberative rule making process is in a far better position than the entire congress to set the proper rules for their own courtroom on this matter. by unbalancing the patent system, we send a signal to inventors, the very people doing the research and developing the cures that been fit us all every day -- benefit us all every day,

that their inventions are not worthy of full legal protection. this means that the next cure for cancer or technological breakthrough may be stymied and perhaps never come, or be developed abroad rather than in the united states. we can and should respond to the problem of patent trolls in a direct but fair and targeted manner. but we must not do so in a way that punishes our innovators and inhibits innovation. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holdings, a distinguished member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. holding: madam chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 3309,

the innovation act, because it's crucial to preserving the integrity of our nation's innovators and creators. one of the constitutional responsibilities of congress is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. this legislation does just that by deterring abuse of our patent litigation system. as the united states attorney, i saw how patent trolls abuse our patent litigation system by acquiring patents they have no intention of using for anything other than their own monetary gain. patent trolls are companies for allegedly -- sue companies for allegedly infringing on patents they had no business acquiring in the first place. the innovation act, which i'm proud to co-sponsor, makes it more difficult for patent trolls to bring a it also aligns fee shifting. there is a lot of opportunity for job creation in the technology sector. the innovation act is essential to protecting these companies from fraud and abuse. i want to thank chairman

goodlatte for his leadership on this issue. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i yield to mr. massey of kentucky, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for three minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. i want to briefly tell you about a young boy who grew up modest surroundings in rural kentucky. although had he no money he was inspired to invent. so he collected junk to build his inventions, broken clocks, radios, vacuum cleanersers who knows maybe one day he could assemble this young into an invention. he was inspired to invent by

stories of edison, ford, tesla. in the seventh grade he invented this robot arm you see here which he won -- which won him a prize at the science fair. he even invent add flowerpot for his grandmother that would water itself. he went on to college where he met other inhe ventors, inspired again not by the creativity but by the fact they could make an honest living by improving the lives of others. one ever his inventor friends invent add robot that vacuums floors for millions of people now. the boy went on, this boy went on to invent a touch interface for computers, obtain 29 patents, raise venture capital, and create dozens of jobs. his story is only possible in america where a robust intellectual property system and judicial system work together to protect the property rights of inventors. knowing this and relying on this, many inventors dedicate their lives, their entire lives, to inventing things that when proven extend the lives of others.

today's patent reform bill is a serious threat to american inventors. that's why inventors are urging us not to pass this bill today. it will create -- it will extinguish creativity and invention in america. recklessly weakening the patent system, as this bill does, will deprive inventors of income and a livelihood. they will pursue other careers. as the role models for young inventors quietly fade into history, fewer young students will pursue invention. a decade from now, congress will further lament the lack of interest among the next generation in science, engineering, technology, and math. arrogantly unaware that it was congress that killed that interest today with this bill, should it pass. how do i know this boy's story so well? how can i anticipate the unintended consequences of this bill? i'm the boy in this picture. and that was my story. it would be shameful and wrong to kick out the latter from our next generation -- ladder from our next generation of

inventors. if my story doesn't compel you, please listen to words ever dean cayman, pick your favorite inventors in history, dean is that inventor of our time. perhaps you know him as inventor of the segue. he's invented a dialysis machine, insulin pump. these inventions have improved the lives of millions of people all over the world. here's what he has to say about this legislation. getting and pain tainting patenting will the decline of the innovation that i've seen in my lifetime, unquote. mr. cayman doesn't just invent, he inspires the next generation to invent with his america first robotics contest that millions of students have participated in. mr. conyers: i yield the gentleman a half minute additionally. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. massey: his robotics

contest, i'm scheduled to meet at those robotics contests in kentucky this weekend. not to inspire them to be politicians but to inspire them to be inventors. should this bill pass, should we kick the ladder out from our young inventors? it's going to be hard for me to face them saturday. i urge my colleagues to listen to the inventors of america who are pleading them to oppose this bill. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, who is a distinguished member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. farenthold: thank you very much. the patent system is a vital part of our national identity. it stimulates american ingenuity and enhances our global competitive stance. traditionally, patentholders, in recent years, abusive patent litigation, patent trolling, is

ballooning as companies buy questionable, vaguely named patents in hopes of extrabblingting licensing fees. they go after hotels and restaurants. it's the reason why you don't have more wi-fi in restaurants. this is legalized extortion. h.r. 3309 will significantly curb this problem. although i oppose some of the bill, this bill is a delicate compromise between competing interests. i hope we can deal with the 9-c problem in the future but overall this is a great bill. i won't let the perfect get in the way of the doable. i hope my colleagues that have minor objections to the bill do the same. we have to stop patent trolling litigation and this bill will do it and i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back. mr. conyers: madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i'm pleased now to yield to a senior member of the

judiciary committee, jerry nadler of new york, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam chair person, i rise in luctant opposition to this bill -- suing companies, small businesses and retailers over vague patents and using the cost of litigation as a weapon of extortion to secure settlement fees. the bill is real, the problem is real and addressing it is important. the bill proposes to address the problem by providing end user ability to switch the suit to the manufacturer, increases transparency of patents and the companies that own them and asks the judicial conference to review and amend certain discovery rules. these are reasonable changes to the current law that will help reduce the burden of patent problems. it does not deal with the problem of diversion of user fees from the patent office. unfortunately also, the authors

of the bill have graphed the tort reform onto the bill. these may limit the ability of real inventors and those with meritorious patent claims to obtain justice in our courts. they are deeply troubling and ought to be addressed with amendments now and improvements to the bill when it is taken up by the senate. the most troubling provision is the loser pays provision. i oppose them in general and in this context as well. the reason is one of fairness. i don't believe that only large corporations or the wealthiest members of society should have access to justice. already, the threat of the enormous cost of litigation may prevent individuals were pursuing the most meritorious civil liability claims. for most individuals and small businesses, the financial risk of having to pay the other side's legal fees is one too great to bear no matter how valid the claim. it's simply not fair to unnecessarily punish individuals with serious and meritorious claims for seeking justice. keep in mind, the person or business can have a legally

legitimate dispute and still ultimately lose the case. punished be unduly for -- they shouldn't be unduly punished. expert legal talent can bully injured plaintiffs into unfair settlements due to the risks associated with losing a potentially successful case. mr. conyers: i yield the gentleman an additional half minute. mr. nadler: thank you. i have other concerns as well when it comes to the bill's modification of pleading standards, but we must deal with the real problem of patent trolls exploiting the current legal system for illegitimate purposes. we must disrupt the business model of the patent troll. we must prevent extortion of small businesses across america. i'll support the bill today but i encourage my friends in the senate to do a better job in balancing the competing interest. i urge them, in particular, to insist on their version of the bill and not allow the house's loser pays provision in the final bill we vote on in the conference report. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from washington state, ms. delbene, a distinguished member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentlewoman from washington state is recognized for two minutes. ms. delbene: thank you, mr. chair. from the judiciary committee's examination of abusive patent litigation this year, it's clear that there's a need for legislative action. this issue harm companies large and small, from big tech companies to restaurants and credit unions. in recent years, even our public transit agencies have been targeted by these so-called patent trolls in my home state of washington, king county metro was hit with a lawsuit in 2011 from a rival star, a company that claimed infringement from a patent that was so broad that it could cover any system that tracks a vehicle. with this lawsuit, king county's innovative bus tracking and a mobile

application which relies on metro's data was threatened. even if there was a strong case to be made for challenging the patent's validity, fighting a suit like this can run into the millions of dollars and at taxpayer expense. so king county had to settle costing them $80,000. and king county was not alone. at least 11 settled with arrival star rather than undertake expensive and time-consuming litigation. and this kind of litigation abuse does a disservice to the u.s. patent system and our innovation economy. in the case of arrival star, harm taxpayers in king county and many other agencies across the country. because of the widespread impact of abusive litigation like this, there is broad support across industry and among public interest groups for measures that reduce the financial incentive for bad actors to bring predatory tent suits, measures such as curbing the cost of litigation

and discovery suits, requiring plaintiffs to be precise in their claims of infringement. the innovation act would do all of these things and it does so by targeting abusive behaviors rather than singling out any particular type of patentholder or business model. i'm please to support this bill today but i believe we must continue to make improvements to the bill as it moves forward in the legislative process. i'll be supporting several amendments on the floor today and continue to work with my colleagues in both chambers to get legislation passed that strikes the right balance and protecting and strengthening our patent system. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, for 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. welch: thank you, mr. chair. patent trolls are not about protecting patents. they're about trolling for easy money at the expense of

hardworking people. patent trolling is a total and complete abuse of the patent system and a total ripoff of hardworking people. and worst of all, it's a complete abuse of good people trying to do good things in their communities. let me give you a couple of examples. grocier, my webb over 180 employees. they've experienced six patent troll attacks. one of the trolls claim to have a patent, and get this, on surfing the web with a mobile device. this was a stickup. another completely outrageous example is a vermont nonprofit. it assists individuals with developmental disabilities. this nonprofit was targeted by a patent troll demanding payment for a supposed infringement on scanning technology.

can you imagine what it's like for a small nonprofit doing good work to get a letter that is essentially a stickup? that's what it is. and what these businesses and nonprofits then have to decide is do they pay the bounty or do they fight. this legislation is definitely needed so that our nonprofits, our small businesses can get on with the good work they're doing without the threat of abusive patent trolling. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, ms. marino, the vice chairman the intellectual property subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. marino: i would like to rise in support of h.r. 3309, the innovation act. people are receiving abusive letters insisting the recipient

has somehow violated the patent. he or she is left with complying with the letter's demand, say, send in cheak for $50,000 and all will be forgotten or taking it to court where it could cost millions of dollars and put these businesses out of business. in 2011, patent trolling cost the economy $29 billion. i want to skip to the notes and go to commonsense legislation. a veteran from afghanistan came in to see me. he saved his money that he earned while protecting his country. he's got a little left. communications with his printer -- his printer. and the troll is suing him saying he violated the patent. well, my computer at home talks to my printer and my kids' computer at home talks to my printer so we must be violating some patent of some sort. this is abusive legislation. it's putting our small business entrepreneurs out of business. i urge my colleagues to support this.

the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i reserve at this point. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam chair, may i ask how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has 20 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from michigan has 18 minutes remaining. mr. goodlatte: at this time, madam chairman, it is my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. issa, a distinguished member of the judiciary committee. i do not see him in the room so we'll come back to him in a moment. at this time we'll yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. cardenas. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. thank you, madam

speaker. i rise today in support of a bipartisan innovation act which makes important rrms to the u.s. patent system to curb abusive litigation. i've heard from businesses of all sizes and in all industries in my district about the added burden faced by too many companies at the hands of patent assertion entities or patent trolls. resources should be better spent on job creation, development of new tools or services or improved infrastructure instead of being used to pay settlements or even unnecessary licenses. enactment of the innovation act will go a long way toward solving this problem. we must support american innovation, job creation and economic growth. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 3309, the innovation act. as a former small business owner myself, one of the things that can hinder job growth in any small business or any community is unnecessary and frivolous lawsuits. thank you and i yield back the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i reserve my time at this point. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, at mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. jefferies, a distinguished member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. jefferies: thank the chairman for his stewardship and the ranking member for his legitimate expressions of concern. this bill is a work in progress, but it's a meaningful step in the right direction as it relates to dealing with the patent troll problem that is adversely impacting small businesses, start-up companies, tech entrepreneurs, innovators, and inventors in new york city and across the country. in our judicial system we must ensure that outcome is

determined on the basis of the merits of a claim and not the high cost of litigation in the patent context. when the latter occurs, innovation is hurt. we must also jealously guard the ability of legitimate patent holders to vindicate their rights in court. and with respect to that concern, there is still significant work to be done in the senate, particularly as it relates to section 285, but not withstanding that concern, this bill, the innovation act, represents a solid foundation upon which to address the patent troll dynamic, which almost everyone in this chamber agrees is a significant problem. for that reason i urge my colleagues to vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, two minutes.

the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. rohrabacher: thank you. we certainly heard a lot about trolls, haven't we? maybe we should understand exactly how that word came about to be used in this debate. a top executive from one of the megacompanies, these international corporations, were sitting around one day and one of them happened to tell me about the conversation they had, which is how do we demonize the small inventor who is coming at us because we are infringing on his patents? how do we do that? we can't attack the small inventor, because people know that's where the progress of the united states comes from is our independent inventors. he we can villainize the lawyers who represent those small inventors. and they went around the room and this executive tells me of

this conversation, what should we call them? what's a sinister evil sound that can get away from the fact we don't have our own arguments and arguments against this don't stand up? that we are attacking the little guy's ability to prevent us from stealing his patent. what words can we use that can get people so they won't see that. let's call them trolls. the guy talking to me was in the conversation, he was an executive from one of these multiinternational corporations, he he told me, he says, i suggested patent pirates. but trolls sounded so much more sinister. that's what we are here today. every time you hear the word troll, what you are hearing is a manipulation of this debate by some very special interest, powerful interest, who wants to steal from the independent inventor. everything in this bill that we are talking about trolls actually impacts on america's independent inventors in a dramatic way.

this undercuts, this is the greatest attack, the biggest attack, on the independent inventor in the 25 years that i have been a member of congress. the fact is these big multinational corporations are infringers. every one of the big corporations behind this bill trying to have us ram this through in the congress is guilty of multiple, has been found guilty of multiple infringements against small inventors. so they are going to get us, oh, no, we are going to pass rules in the name of stopping the trolls which are really going to undercut the small inventor in this country. this is a disaster. this is an anti-innovation bill. this is a less kowtow to these multiinternational corporations like google who has poured lots of campaign donation noose this issue on capitol hill in the last few years. let's watch out for the little guy. what we have, the final edsonses, the people who came up

with the changes that have made america secure, made us prosperous, made our people competitive with cheap labor overseas because we've got the technology, yeah, let's make sure that we don't smash this generation's edisons. i oppose this bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds to affirm what we have said from the outset. this bill is designed for the little guy, both the innovator, the inventor, and the end user small business that is getting subject to these throlling attacks. no innovator, no inventor who brings a lawsuit to perfect their claim should fear this legislation unless their claim has no reasonable basis in law or fact. it is only then that they would be disadvantaged. in fact, most of the provisions in this bill are designed to lower the cost of litigation.

the big guys can pay all they need to for litigation. the little guys can't afford to. by lowering the cost of litigation, we are going to create greater opportunity both for the innovators to pursue their good claims and for the little guys on the receiving end who get these outrageous demand letters on the other side who are having to pay outrageous costs or simply pay money. at this time, madam chairman, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. issa, a distinguished member of the judiciary committee. we'll a distinguished gentlewoman from california -- the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. goodlatte: the gentleman is yielded two minutes. the chair: for two minutes. mr. issa: thank you, mr. chairman. my colleague from california a few moments ago spoke eloquently on behalf of the small inventor. but he didn't speak for me and

i'm a small inventor. when i patented my first product , all i had were a couple of employees, an idea, and i presented a product that i really wanted to make to a company 245 i thought -- that i thought would buy it, then i raced down to protect my rights and succeeded. ultimately was paid. i know very well what you do if you assert patent infringement if you want to prevail. you look at the competitor's product. you take some due diligence. all this legislation is trying to do and do well is to put some teeth into what my colleague from california disparaged, the trolls who will simply surf the internet and send out litigation alleging patent infringement with products they never looked at and understood, nor do they know if they fall under their patent. i received damages under rule 11 sanction. i know what it takes to show a completely frivolous case. i prosecuted my own patents

against infringers. i know what you should do before you assert to somebody patent infringement. this bill does one thing very well. it puts a little bit of teeth, finally, back into what the trolls use as a tool, file a lawsuit, collect an amount of money because people don't want to spend it on litigation, just for once i'd like us to understand this is not sponsored by the big guys. in fact, the little guys starting a company who gets a letter or a suit from a troll is the person that this will protect. i know this first hand for more than three decades of being an inventor. mr. chairman, i thank you for your leadership on this issue. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased now to yield to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. madam nson: thank you,

speaker. mr. chairman, i think it's time this morning to reveal a little bit of truth. e have had reports of trolls just running through the marketplace of america. trolls. you know those, the one that is hang out under bridges and scare you when you were a child. a troll is just something that s -- oh, boy, it's to be avoided. all patent plaintiffs bringing actions to protect their patents, we are now calling them trolls. and that's not true. that's not accurate. in fact, it's very inaccurate. cases thatthe patent are filed in the courts of this country could be considered done

in bad faith. so you could call those plaintiffs, i suppose, patent trolls, but 5% of the litigation oes not equate to we are being overrun by patent trolls. that's just not correct. there is a problem with abusive litigation. so how do you get at that? how do you -- how do you, without closing the courthouse door on plaintiffs seeking to assert their rights to their patents, and those plaintiffs tend to be small entities, mom and pop inventors back in the garage or down in the basement, some 28-year-old ex-harvard junior who dropped out and comes thing that next explodes in the technology

field. how to we protect those folks who are trying to honestly protect their patents? i submit that h.r. 3309 goes way beyond what is necessary. it also has some constitutional implications. the rule's enabling act was .assed by congress back in 1934 and that rules enabling act was a very wise and considered piece of legislation. it recognized the fact that federal courts would be better law nd the federal body of would be better off if we leave it to the federal courts to determine their rules of procedure.

there was -- 34 the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. johnson: prior to 1934 there was something called the conformity principle, which held that federal court procedures should be in accordance with the states wherein those federal courts sat. but that proved to be unworkable . so the rules enabling clause went into effect. since then we have left it to the federal judiciary through the judiciary conference to promulgate rules of procedure in both civil and criminal cases, and it has worked well. now we have section 6 of this atent troll act that imposes

upon our judiciary rules of procedure and these rules have not been recommended by the judicial conference. in fact, the judicial conference led by chief justice roberts is opposed to this change. and therefore i think on constitutional grounds this should be defeated. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry, for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and myself. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for three minutes. mr. terry: thank you, madam chair. i rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy from my friend from utah joining with me . chairman goodlatte, i want to

thank you for your attention to the very serious problem of patent assertions, entities, otherwise known as patent trolls here today. on november 14 the house energy and commerce committee held a hearing entitled, quote, the impact of pat interassertion entities on innovation and the economy. we heard from a variety of witness -- witness and industry including the food, hospitality, tech, all of whom had been targeted by vague, unfair, and he deceptive patent troll demand letters. that hearing revealed significant economic harm to main street businesses and the economy caused by such patent troll demand letters. these entities engage in abusive practice that is often target small businesses because they don't have the resources to fight back. the markup for the innovation act, mr. shea fits offered an amendment that resulted in a sense of congress in the bill before us today. that language says, and i quote, it's an abuse of the patent

system and against public policy for a party to send out a purposely evasive demand letters to end users alleging patent infringement, end quote. as chairman of the house energy and commerce committee, subcommittee on commerce manufacturing, trade with jurisdiction over these type of consumer abuses, i join with your sentiments. . i want to yield to mr. chaffetz. mr. chaffetz: knowing you, mr. terry, are working on a bill that i'm going to wholeheartedly support. we received support for this approach for many business groups, including the national retail federation, national restaurant association, the app developers alliance, the american association of advertising agencies, the

association of national advertisers, the food marketing institute, the mobile marketing association, the national association of convenient stores, the national grossiers association, the american hotel and lodging association, just to name a few. these represent hundreds of thousands of businesses and millions of employees across the country. it would be my hope that the house would expeditiously take up any demand letter legislation reported out of the house energy and commerce committee under your leadership. i support it and i yield back. mr. terry: and the energy and commerce subcommittee intends to proceed through regular order as soon as it is practical to examine both the problem of vague patent demand letters and potential solutions to the federal trade commission could implement. we cook another step just recently in a hearing with our f.t.c. commissioners this week on the patent demand -- patent troll demand letters issue. at this time i yield back to the gentleman from virginia.

mr. goodlatte: i yield -- madam chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds so i can respond and thank the gentleman from nebraska and the energy and commerce committee for their good work on this issue. he has my commitment to work on this important issue and we must continue to work to rein in the abuses of these demand letters. i also look poured to working with mr. chaffetz -- i also look forward to working with mr. chaffetz and the energy and commerce committee and know we can produce a good product to further address this issue within that committee's jurisdiction. mr. terry: thank you. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. rohrabacher: we keep hearing this is about trolls. how does -- and we just heard about a problem that's being described and it is a good -- big problem where you got people's -- people coming into a retailer and suggesteding

they're going to use them for using a piece of technology that the retailer is not fully aware of. ok. how does taking away the rights of every american inventor to judicial review of what the patent office has done to accept or reject his patent? how does that affect the trolls? it affects the so-called trolls not at all, but i tell you what it does. it means that we have taken away a right of every -- i would ask for 30 seconds, please? mr. conyers: and extra 30 seconds pour the gentleman. mr. rohrabacher: we're taking the right of every independent inventor, a right he's had as an american since 1836 to say if a government official in the patent office is doing something illegal to deny him his patent, this small inventor has a right, has a right to go to the judges and get a court action on it. why -- what does that have to do with trolls? that's in this bill. we are taking away the rights of little guys, small inventors in the name of getting the

trolls and we're making it impossible for small inventors to go after the big infringers, these multinational corporations which tell these guys, screw off, you can't challenge us in the courts anyway. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds to respond. the very provision that the gentleman from california references, section 145, is used by these very patent trolls to bypass the process and that's why working in conjunction with the american invents act that's already been passed and this legislation we an effective tool for those legitimate inventors and stop the trolls from getting out from under the bridge. my time has expired and i now yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for one minute, a distinguished member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: i thank the chairman

for yielding. not all lawsuits in the patent business are done by trolls. but some are. and these are obvious frivolous lawsuits on their face. and the first time it appears in the system is when that small business owner gets that demand letter in the mail and it's nothing more than legalized extortion where the letter basically says, you will settle for $10,000 or we're going to sue you and it will cost you more money to defend yourself. settle. and what small business owners do, they're faced with that and many of them settle or they go out of business. and that's what this legislation tries to prevent. the extortion racket in the patent infringement business and it's done by some -- people we call trolls. this legislation protects the small business owner. it gets the trolls, the frivolous lawsuit folks out of the extortion racket early on in the system. that's why this piece of legislation is good for small

business. that's why it's good for the patent industry. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased now to yield to the gentlelady from california, zoe lofgren, 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. lofgren: i thank you. mr. conyers, thank you. mr. chairman, thank you. i'm glad we're here today addressing these issues of abusive lawsuits in the patent system. as has been mentioned by others, we do have a problem. it's widely agreed to among patent assertion entities, sometimes called patent trolls. these lawsuits, these abusive lawsuits that are brought can easily cost $2 million to $10 million apiece and that's why when a meritless lawsuit is threatened, it's easy to extort a smaller payment to make it go

away. and that's what we're trying to deal with here. this is a big issue for small businesses. now with colleen chen the white house did a study and found more than half of these suits were against companies less than $10 million in annual revenue. that's why this bill -- it's not a perfect bill -- why this bill has such broad support. it is genuinely a bipartisan bill. i am a co-sponsor of this bill, along with congresswoman anna eshoo, congressman honda, and others. at a time when the country is saying, can't you just work together, we have. it's reasonable people can differ which is why we have this debate here today. we have 40 members of the house judiciary committee, only five members voted against reporting this bill out. and that's remarkable. the white house has just issued a very strong statement of

administrative policy. they support this bill. and so at a time when too often we're seen as the battling biggersons, we have support across the aisle with the white house to do this. what does the bill do? it deals with pleading requirements. oftentimes these patent assertion entities say i think fringement. what is being infringed? it does change attorneys' fees that matches the existing rule in copywrite. copyright. i oppose fee shifting generally but the congress on many occasions to deal with specific problems. this would join that. i would note that the shifts would not occur unless the party's position is reasonably -- unreasonably justified. so the court is not to allow this shift if the party has a

reasonable case in fact or law or my colleague, mr. jeffries, had added a severe economic harm. i would note that this is supported from startups to big companies. i would ask unanimous consent o put in the record letters of application -- engine alliance and the electronic frontier foundation and i yield back. the chair: the request will be considered under general leave. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, a distinguished member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. chaff -- mr. chabot: thank you, madam

speaker. our patent system is complex. in our i will tidgeous society -- in our litigious society, it's bad that they are trying to take advantage of our small businesses. young, innovative companies are increasingly threatened and targeted by patten troll lawsuits. and a majority of companies targeted by patent trolls have less than $10 million in revenue. they target these small companies because the companies typically don't have the resources to fight back. so small businesses have a choice. do they set well a patent troll or do they go out of business? and people lose jobs. that's the choice that small businesses and startups are forced to make, pay off a patent troll or shut their doors. the innovation act levels the playing field for small businesses and startups. it brings transparency to the patent process and helps protect one of our founding constitutional principles, protect property and promote innovation. these trolls do not create

products. they do not create jobs. they create headaches and at a significant cost to our economy, $80 billion in 2011 alone. $80 billion. it's said that sunlight is the best disinfectent. this provides sunlight that disinfects a shadow abuse of the patent litigation. this bill is the best first step in protecting entrepreneurs from this type of abuse. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i am pleased now to recognize the gentlelady from texas, sheila jackson lee, an effective member of the committee, for three minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for three minutes. the ckson lee: i thank

gentleman from michigan for his leadership and i likewise thank the chairman for his leadership . the discourse and debate on the floor of the house is not evidencing the unity and the unia numberity that members of the house -- unanimity that members of the house in regards to protecting our small inventors and so i would offer myself and many others as a champion for this concept that we are greatest when we are protecting and coddling and growing the inventive mind of america and our small inventors. the innovation act has a wonderful name, and i congratulate chairman goodlatte for his interest and commitment to this process. we have always worked in a collaborative and bipartisan manner on the judiciary committee as it relates to

intellectual property and competition. today however, our disagreement, if you will, is not on the underlying concept but on a very crucial process that is not in keeping with the mindset of the founding fathers. i imagine that patent law got intimately engaged in the constitutional process because of a young man by the name of benjamin franklin, an inventor, and he foresaw a great america and the need to be able to encourage those in garages and maybe by candlelight looking to change the landscape of the lives of those who lived in that country and now have lived and do live in the greatest nation in the world. and so the question is on h.r. 3309, for all of our friends that are making their decisions, it is whether or not this is a bill before a time

and whether or not this question that we have before us, this bill truly stops the trolls, advertisement that was not placed by me but put in the newspaper to suggest that the trolls may not be the ugly beast but it may be the way this bill, 3309, is written. because in fact the small guy does pay. in fact, the small inventor is not protected. in fact, the pleadings are difficult. n fact, the early days of c.j. walker who invented hair lotions for black woman or jones who invented the automatic refrigeration systems for long haul trucks or one that invented long-lasting light bulbing or maybe even the early days of the giant companies that are now known to

live in places like silicon valley, from yahoo! to google, that started in the earliest moments of their beginnings, harvard dorm a room or someone else's dorm room, i think the question becomes, are these individuals protected? and according to the research that we've done, small inventors are not protected. . the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: i would argue, madam speaker, i would just say, madam chair, that i'd ask for more time. if we want to do some work let's pass h.r. 15, comprehensive imgration reform because that is ready to pass. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, it's now my very sincere pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, the lead democratic

co-sponsor of this legislation, and who came to me with his ideas at the beginning of this congress and have worked with me throughout this congress on this legislation. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. waxman: i thank the chairman. i thank him for his tremendous efforts on. i believe this is -- mr. defazio: i believe this is shield ement over the act which mr. shea fits and i offered a couple years ago. we have a nationwide protection racket going here. it's a little more sophisticated than the gang that says we are gg to smash the windows of your store unless you pay us 50 bucks a week. what you have here are hugely sophisticated, well funded patent assertion entities across america, and they did file 62% of the patent litigation, not 5% as we heard earlier asserted by one of my colleagues. and the payoff here is, ok, if you pay us $50,000, we won't drag you through endless court

proceedings. they are going to cost you $1 million or more. all they have to do is assert something very big. we own this patent and you are infringing on it. that's it. that's all they have to assert. it's up to the snall business to figure out what that infringement is, which means they have to hire attorneys, they have to go through discovery, and incredibly, lengthy, and expensive process. i found out about this in my district. a little small software firm, less than 100 people, about to launch a new product, and the owner said to me, it's going to be delayed because i had to hire new employees to launch this product, but i have a shadow oferte business. i said what's that? the owner said, i've been sued by patent troll over a very simple, they are claiming that this very simple common thing that's part of our software is their patent. we must pay them $200,000 to make them go away. she said i can't do an expansion and $200,000. her company can't be named

because these patent trolls are so aggressive when n.p.r. ran a story about this, one company was featured, with an egregious story of one of these patent trolls, one of these blackmailers, they went public. and then they immediately got a pile of new assertions on them by patent trolls. the patent trolls have lots of attorneys, lots of money. it's very lucrative extortion racket to go out and do this. some companies will fight. e.m.c. out of massachusetts fought. the claims were totally specious . but they fought. this is what it takes. they had to go to this one district in texas where all these cases are heard. they had to go through one hotel and rent it for their team. the electricity wasn't adequate. they didn't have broadband. they had to install all that so they can be there and defend themselves. no one goes to there to defend themselves against these patent trolls. tees expensivement they pay the bribes. t cost them over two million

bucks. the jury was out less than 10 minutes because it was a totally specious claim. most things don't go that far because most people have to pay because they can't afford so the disruption or litigation or other times they are halfway through paying the litigation, the patent assertion entity drop their false claims. some people are saying we are closing the courthouse door. we are barring litigation here. in fact the standard is, no reasonable basis in law and fact, universities and innovators don't bring those inds of suits. patent trolls do. stop the patent troll. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, may i inquire how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has 5 1/2 minutes remaining.

the gentleman from michigan has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. madam chairman, it's my pleasure to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman from virginia. when we look at the cost, not just of litigation but of companies having top consult with lawyers at times because of completely frivolous letters that they get that are vague with regard to what the abuses are, the damage is not only to the company that receives the message, the damage is to all consumers. the price, the extra price is simply passed on to all of us who use goods and services in a digital economy. this bill makes it important -- makes an important step forward tore bringing our patent process into the 21st century, taking into account digital innovation. there's a long way to go. when our patent system was first put together for mechanical innovation, for which it still

works, people didn't even know what software or bilogical innovation was. we have come a long way. i think we have learned a lot over that time. one thing that we have learned is that we need to fine-tune how software and digital innovation interact with our intellectual property protections. this bill takes an important step in this direction. while it doesn't wholly fix our patent system, it will undeniably deter abusive patent suits that are brought by patent entities and trolls that raise prices for consumers, destroy jobs, are particularly onerous in start-up businesses and entrepreneurs, and have essentially a tax across our entire economy on innovation and job growth. i strongly encourage my colleagues to support this bill and appreciation -- appreciate the good work of representative goodlatte and lofgren in bringing this bill to us to the floor today. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized.

mr. conyers: we are ready to close on this side. mr. goodlatte: at this time, madam chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. mr. chaffetz: thank you. i thank chairman goodlatte. i thank members on both sides of the aisle for working on this. the 112th congress, i worked closely with congressman defazio on the shield act. but a much better bill is before us today. i want people to understand the gravity of the problem and who is also being attacked. i find this fascinating. 55%, 55% of troll suits involve companies with annual revenues of $10 million or less. yes, of course, might crow softs and the or rackles and the -- oricles and the big companies out there are -- oracles and the big companies out there are going to be in a constant flux of litigation. but it's the small companies

getting bombarded. if you look over, since 2005, there are literally four times as many troll suits going through the patent system right now than there were in 2005. they are being extorted. this helps solve this. this is why i'm so enthusiastically supporting this bill. i appreciate the bipartisan support on this. it does solve a problem, a very real problem. and the majority of the problem are for companies with annual revenues of less than $10 million. i appreciate the chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. mr. conyers: reserves, please. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i'm pleased to yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino, the vice chair of the intellectual property subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for 30 seconds. and the gentleman from virginia will have 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. marino: i have been involved in working on patent reform since i was elected and took

office in 2011. this is not new. we have been working on this legislation if not for several months at least several weeks where it's been up on the internet to see, for our colleagues to read. i'm tired of hearing here in congress we need more time and more time to do something. if businesses operated the way congress did, they would be out of business. finally, this is a quintessential example of us getting off our did you have and doing something in reasonable amount of time that's going to help small business owners because, as we stand here and speak, more and more are being put out of business because of trolls. i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from michigan has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. conyers: thank you. i am pleased now to call a senior member of the committee, our friend from north carolina, mel watt, who has worked on this

assiduously for a number of years, the remainder of our time on this side. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for 4 1/2 minutes. mr. watt: thank you, madam chair. i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam chairman, i'm pained to be here today in opposition to this bill. i stood shoulder to shoulder with the chair of our full in ttee two years ago patent reform after working almost six years to find consensus on a patent bill that moved our nation forward. we are here this time three, four, maximum six months into the process and we haven't done our diligence because we have heard all morning people coming to the floor saying this is a work in progress. well, i thought the place we did works in progress were in our

committee system. here we are on the floor with a bill that everybody is bragging about it being a work in process. the result of that is that the work will be done on this bill by the united states senate. they will write this bill. we won't write it because we didn't take the time to do what we should have done in the judiciary committee to refine this bill. stood shoulder to shoulder with former director of the patent and trademark office two years ago, david kappos, this is what he says in an op-ed piece today, i want to quote. our news is peppered these days with reports of, quote, patent trolls. dark, ugly creatures shaking down innocent companies based on absurd claims of patent infringement. congress should quickly pass

legislation to curtail this abusive behavior. however, some are using the need to address the patent troll issue as cover to unnecessarily weaken our nation's patent laws. if passed in its current form, the focus of legislative discussions would undermine the u.s. innovation and job creation. that's what the former director of the patent and trademark office says because we haven't done what we should have done. we set out to solve a problem dealing with patent trolls, argument about whether that's 5%, 20%, the g.a.o. says maximum 20% regardless of what these statistics are coming from. nd we are imposing a burden on

100% of the people in the patent litigation system to deal with a problem that at most is 20% of the problem, of the litigation in our system. everybody is going to pay the price of this bill as it goes forward in its current form. and that's the problem i have with this. we have a problem. patent trolls are a problem, but you can't define what a patent troll is, and in order to deal with patent trolls, we are imposing a burden on the other people in the litigation system who are not patent trolls, and that's unfair. we are imposing a burden on small innovators because they will fear that they will lose a awsuit and end up paying exorbitant cost of the people

who they litigated against, even he though their claim was a legitimate claim. and they'll spend extra money to litigate about whether they should have to pay the cost. millions of dollars will be spent litigating about whether the fee should be shifted or not, and that's not the way we have done this in our american system. the problem is we haven't done anything in this bill, and you have heard it discussed in the debate up to this point, about the real problem here, which is people who are writing demands on little people out in the stream of commerce making demands on them, that's before he they ever get to litigation. this bill says nothing about demand letters. we are going to concede that. we say to the commerce committee. well, what is this bill going to do? it's going to impose a burden on

everybody in the litigation system as we try to deal with a 20% problem or a 5% problem at the most. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. . mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. goodlatte: in closing, i want to thank my fellow judiciary colleagues and their staff who has devoted much time, intellect. we worked toward a common goal of comprehensive patent litigation reform for the past decade. while some of us still have differences over individual items, i want these members to know that i appreciate their contributions to the project and i value their friendship. i also want to particularly thank representatives howard coble, zoe lofgren and peter defazio for serving as lead sponsors of this legislation, and most particularly, congresswoman lofgren who worked so hard with us in the

markup process in the judiciary committee. in the senate, we've worked closely with senators leahy, grassley, cornyn, hatch, lee and others. i want to thank them and their staffs for their contributions for this effort. furthermore, i'd like to thank the white house and the u.s. patent and trademark office for working collaboratively with us and providing important technical assistance. i also want to thank both my full committee and i.p. subcommittee staff for all of their hard work on this important legislation. d most particularly, vishal amen, counsel to the committee. this is what i consider central to u.s. competitiveness, job creation and our nation's future economic security. the innovation acts is the product much much -- act is the product of much negotiation and compromise. it can be said this bill is the product of years of work. we have worked with members of both parties in both the senate and the house with stakeholders from all areas of our economy

and with the administration and the courts. to ensure an open, deliberative and thoughtful process, we held several hearings and issued two public discussion drafts in may and september of this year which led to the formal introduction of the innovation act in october. the innovation act takes meaningful steps to address the abusive practices that have damaged our patent system and resulted in significant economic harm to our nation. this bill will help grow america's innovation economy. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3309 and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print

113-28. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part a of house report 113-283. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in art a of house report 113-283. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the

clerk will designate the amendment. -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the chair: the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 113-283 offered by mr. goodlatte of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 429, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i recognize myself for such time as i may consume. the manager's amendment was developed based on discussions with a cross-industry range of stakeholders, the input of members from the house and senate, the courts and the administration, including the u.s. patent and trademark office. my amendment consists of technical edits and a few modifications that improve the bill. the manager's amendment includes clarifications and edits on limitations of discovery prior to a markman or claim hearing. it can be complied with providing additional discretion for the courts to ensure the provision does not result in

reversed gamesmanship. the amendment also makes clarifications to the bankruptcy provisions so that they work properly, ensuring that u.s. law is followed and not foreign law. further, it includes modifications to the deadlines for various studies to provide the agencies enough time to prepare and develop their reports. the manager's amendment makes additional clarifications and modifications that on the whole make necessary and positive improvements to our patent system. the innovation act targets abusive patent litigation, protects the patn't system, increases transparency, prevents extortion and provides greater clarity. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the manager's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conyers: thank you very much. must oppose t, i

the manager's amendment because they do not significantly alter the underlying bill which will be making sweeping and unnecessary changes to patent litigation and encroach upon the independence of the federal judiciary. that does tion 6-d not address the substantive deficiencies in the bill. 6-d, by mandating u.s. law applies in determining the rights of intellectual property licensees directly contraconvenients the important principles that -- contraconvenients the important principles that pertain to chapter 15 of the bankruptcy code which deals with transitional -- transnational bankruptcies.

congress intended the chapter 15 not mandate any one country's substantive law. substantive law should control. but section 6-d does exactly this and may encourage other countries to opt out of the cooperative insolvency system part for integral chapter 15. so this in short is failing to address another flawed revision to the bankruptcy code. and section 6-d imposes an impossible affirmative duty on bankrupt licensor to monitor and control the quality of the license product or service even if there is no money to pay for

this. please vote against this manager's amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i recognize myself for such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: it is unusual for a party in opposition to oppose a manager's amendment because they don't disagree with the provisions in the amendment but rather say they don't make enough changes. so even though it's acknowledged that this improves the bill, that still causes opposition. but i want to address what the gentleman says he wants in the manager's amendment. section 365 of title 11 prevents the bankruptcy trustee from terminating licenses to patents and other intellectual property of the debtor. when congress enacted 365-n in

1999, it recognized that allowing patent and other i.p. licenses to be revoked in bankruptcy would be extremely disruptive to the economy and damaging both to patent owners and to licensing manufacturers. manufacturers often invest billions of dollars in reliance on their right to practice a technology pursuant to a license. allowing the license to be eliminated in bankruptcy would create commercial uncertainty and would undermine manufacturing investment. in recent years, some bankruptcy trustees have tried to subvert the protections of section 365-n for u.s. intellectual property by filing bankruptcy in a foreign country and demanding that u.s. courts extend comity, termination of licenses to intellectual property in the foreign proceeding. the provision that the gentleman wants would eliminate important provisions, and the -- that would eliminate -- i'm sorry -- the underlying bill provisions eliminate this uncertainty and would guarantee

that licenses to u.s. patents and other i.p. will always be protected in u.s. courts. the gentleman wants something that would undermine that. failing to include this provision, a manufacturer deciding where to build a new fabrication plant would invest his resources in a foreign country that protects i.p. licenses instead of in the united states. the substitute would -- i'm sorry -- the gentleman's provision that he'd like to see in the manager's amendment would encourage offshoring of u.s. manufacturing. so i strongly support the language in the manager's amendment and object to the suggestion that his provision that's not in this amendment, which we'll also address later in the amendment debate, would enhance the manager's amendment. it would not. have would have the opposite effect. i strongly urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. goodlatte: yes, i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. conyers: mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i yield myself 15 seconds before i yield to mr. watt merely to let you know that the national bankruptcy conference is opposed to this in ment and has set forth a very detailed draft -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. conyers: their reasons for that. and i now yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. watt: i thank the gentleman i want to g time and rise not so much in opposition to the manager's amendment but in opposition to the bill so we can try to make sure that people understand what it is they're voting on. we set out to solve a problem

of patent trolls, and that term has become a convenient shorthand to refer to a class of plaintiffs who engage in abusive litigation tactics against deep-pocked alleged infringers as well as individual inventors and small companies. i certainly recognize, as i have in my previous statement, there are entities that exploit the litigation system, to gain leverage against businesses large and small that represent a vital part of our economy. and i'd like for congress actually to deal with that issue in a meaningful way. unfortunately, this bill adopts an extreme unbalanced approach to address those abuses. the term patent troll simply has no concrete contours in application, making it nearly impossible to craft legislation

, specifically targeted a category of entities or particular business models. and because not only patent trolls initiate litigation to enforce patent rights, legislation aimed at patent litigation systems must not erect unfair barriers that deter legitimate meritorious claims of infringement. nor shall it be treated -- nor shall this bill be treated as if it will apply only in the troublesome jurisdictions in which these abuses are taking place. this bill has broad application across our entire patent ecosystem. the bill suffers from a rushed only a nd responds to part of the constituency in the patent ecosystem.

what's most regretful and regrettable to me is i believe that with thoughtful inclusive deliberation, the goals of the bill could be achieved if we would simply take the time to do it. he product before us, however, -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. watt: i'll submit the balance of my statement for the record and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of my time. mr. chairman, the provision that the gentleman from michigan complains of is supported by the intellectual property owners association, the 21st century coalition, which is a group of manufacturers, the semiconductor industry, they strongly support the provision in the bill that's enhancing the manager's amendment because otherwise we would be allowing a foreign trustee, a foreign

bankruptcy trustee to liquidate licenses and create great uncertainty in the free markets. that is definitely what is not intended by this legislation, and it would create a giant loophole that would create incentives to locate businesses -- manufacturing businesses outside the united states rather than inside the united states. the language is very definitely needed, and i urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment. . the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in . rt a of house report 113-283 for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. watt: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk which is made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in part a of house report number 113-283, offered by mr. watt of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 429, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. watt: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. watt: mr. chairman, upon introduction of this bill, the chairman released a statement that section -b of the bill, quote, aligns fee shifting in patent cases with the standard

that is used for awarding fees against the united states under the equal access to justice act, close quote. unfortunately, the fee shifting provision in this bill even as amended cherry picks the most burdensome requirements from the equal access to justice act that mandate that judges award fees against the loser unless they prove that their position was reasonably justified. the bill was amended at the last minute, the markup, presumably to relax the burden on the nonprevailing party to escape the requirement to pay the fees of the adverse party. i actually supported the amendment during markup relying on that presumption. since then, however, it's become apparent both based on the committee report and independent research, that the amendment to change the substantially justified standard to a reasonably justified standard,

is practically meaningless. as summarized in a c.r.s. report that i will submit for the record, the senate committee -- judiciary committee in the 1996 congress considered and rejected an amendment to the equal access to justice act that would have changed the pertent language from substantially justified to reasonably justified. subsequently the supreme court in pierce vs. underwood held that substantially justified actually means reasonable. this troubling development highlights the pitfalls to considering legislative language in haste. it also makes my amendment all the more important to a balanced and unbiased fee shifting mechanism. the american rule that each party to litigation bears the only cost and attorneys fees is the bedrock of the civil justice system. i generally oppose litigation that erodes this rule because i

believe it provides open access to our courts to anyone who has a grievance. the departure from the american rule as enacted in the equal access to justice act was far more complex than the provision extracted and incorporated in this bill. for example, the equal access to justice act prescribes a fee cap of $125 per hour that is not in this bill. it also prohibits with a couple of exceptions fee awards to attorneys whose worth exceeds $ million. to businesses with a net worts in excess of -- net worth in excess of $7 million or more than 500 employees. this limitation also did not find its way into this provision in the bill. my amendment seeks to amend h.r. 3309 with yet another feature of the equal access to justice act that is not in the innovation

act which is the provision that gives a judge the flexibility to deny or reduce an award that would be required if the nonprevailing party could not establish that their position as we now know was reasonable. the amendment injects balance into this regime that represents a departure from the american rule. a judge should be able to assess the behavior of all the parties, otherwise a wealthy party that is not concerned if they are imposing with the cost and he fees of their adversary may engage in behavior intended to deplete the resources of the poorer opposing party. the threshold for authorizing fee shifting i think should be sufficiently stringent so that the exception doesn't become the rule. but it should not be so stringent that it becomes meaningless. whether that is the case, it is the question before the supreme

icon healthness vs. fitness, the court will consider the two-part test that the federal circuit has already set up. although i think the court will adjust the formula downward for identifying cases in which fee shifting may be appropriate, we are clearly not deferring to the court's docket. i think my amendment is the preferred and necessary approach , and with that i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. conyers: to support the watt amendment. i ask to be recognized. the chair: without objection. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. i don't know if he's --

the chair: is the gentleman opposed to the amendment? mr. goodlatte: i am. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: this amendment includes language that we believe is already implicit in the innovation act's fee shifting provision in section 3. the gentleman's amendment adds language that allows a judge to reduce an award in certain circumstances. this amendment is redundant with the provisions in the bill and does not appear to add anything new but rather adds extraneous language that simply adds clutter to the section. the judiciary committee considered and rejected this amendment during its markup of the bill. the fee shifting language in the bill is a carefully crafted compromise that we negotiated on a bipartisan basis in the committee. mr. jefferies offered an amendment at the committee that was adopted and included in the bill that modified the fee shifting language. with that amendment, all but five democrats joined with all voting republicans of the

committee and reported the bill by a vote of 33-5. this amendment upsets that balance and should be rejected. i reserve the balance of my time. i yield. mr. watt: i'm wondering if you think this is redundant and extraneous rather than contrary to the intent, why wouldn't we just accept the amendment and keep going? mr. goodlatte: i believe it is both and causes confusion in the amendment -- in the legislation and therefore i oppose the amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina has 15 seconds remaining. mr. watt: i'm going to yield to the gentlelady from washington state. and ask the chair if he might yield her an additional 45 seconds to complete her statement. if it's all right. the chair: the gentlewoman from washington is recognized for 15 seconds. >> i rise in support of this amendment. we know that small businesses are on the receiving end of frivolous litigation, and it's

critical we work to pass legislation to disincentivize abusive behavior, but also ensure we don't adversely affect the small inventors and start-ups who need to protect their i.p. and have access to the courts. mr. dell beanie: many -- ms.delbene: many have concerned and i support the ranking member's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lofgren: thank you. i'm afraid i must oppose my colleague's amendment. i believe that the amendment would basically gut core elements of the innovation's act protections for small business. and leave small businesses exposed. we discussed the fee shifting issue so i want to focus on two other issues. the discovery cost shifting and the heightened pleading provisions that i think are very important in the bill.

first, on pleading requirements, patent assertion entities are often sued and do not reveal what patent the defendant is allegedly infringing or how. that's why the innovation act requires greater particularity in pleading. the bill's requirement includes information a plaintiff should already have on hand, but the bill specifically provides an exception for information that is not reasonably accessible to the plaintiff. the amendment would eliminate that provision. relative to a discovery. one of the ways that patent defendants bully is rising the cost of litigation. section 3 of the bill directs the court to limit discovery until claim destruction occurs. that gives defendants a break from costly discovery requests until it's more clear what the

claims against them are. now, the bill also says the court shall, that's mandatory, shall require discovery beyond that related to claim construction if it's necessary -- not at the moment. if it's necessary to ensure a timely resolution of the action. the bill provides the court with discretion to permit discovery to prevent manifest injustice. i believe that that bill, the bill before us, is a very important element of protecting a against abusive litigation and the amendment would do damage to it. finally, i would just associate myself with the chairman's comments on fee shifting. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, i reiterate my opposition to the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

north carolina. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. watt: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in art a of house report 113-283. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report a of house report number 113-283, offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 429, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado.

mr. polis: thank you, madam chair. i'm thankful for chairman goodlatte and his staff and the committee for her work on this bill and increasing demand transparency in both the committee mark and working with us on the floor to incorporate a bipartisan amendment that we were able to work on with representative connolly, chaffetz, and marino that builds upon the language in the bill. very simply our amendment would ensure that trolls can no longer hide behind shell companies to conceal their true identity from demand letter recipients. our amendment is a step in the right direction in providing businesses and entrepreneurs the tools to better assess the validity of demand letters. i do have a comprehensive bill along with representative marino and deutsch that moves further in that direction that we introduced two weeks ago. in our bill we clarify the f.t.c. has the authority to go after patent trolls. as we move to enhance the value of demand letter transparency, i'm pleased that energy and commerce subcommittee chairman lee a few minutes ago expressed the intent of the committee to further examine this issue. and this amendment is an important step in the right direction.

i urge my colleagues to support the polis-connolly-chaffetz-marino amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. rohrabacher: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: is the gentleman opposed? mr. rohrabacher: the gentleman is opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: let us remember as we go through this debate that it is the contention of those who oppose this legislation that this legislation has a more dramatic negative impact on the independent inventor who is seeking justice from the infringement of multinational corporations who, i might add, multinational corporations who infringe a great deal upon these little guys. we are cutting off the little guy's ability to protect their patent by making it much more difficult to, number one, have a patent, how does that stop the

trolls? by making it more difficult to have a patent. and it makes it more difficult to defend a patent as what we are seeing in this amendment. and how does that necessarily deal with the trolls? so we now have put a huge burden , that 1345u8 independent inventors don't have now, if they are fighting goliath. they are fighting these big corporations that routinely infringe and steal from the little guy. . as i have said openly in the beginning, this is a strategy set down by these big corporate interests to make trolls the issue and not patent rights the issue. in this particular amendment, what we've added is a further burden on the part of the small inventor to protect his patent in the name of getting the trolls. we have presuit notification required and confirmation of

exactly who owns what we've got here now in the current law, yes, people can seek, small business, excuse me, small inventors can seek investors, can seek people to join them, to help them take on the big guys. but now all of those people who are trying to help the little guy are going to have to have public knowledge. so many, all inventors who have done so many great things for america because they know these corporate people, who are infringing on the little guy, they seek vengeance on people who, guess what, who oppose their power grab on these little guys. we don't need that, we need to know whether or not it is a valid patent claim. that's what we need to know. does someone have a valid patent claim and if they do, let's not demonize these people who are helping the small inventor, or let's find out, is

this a legitimate claim or not? and unfortunately this legislation and this amendment has nothing to do with whether or not we're determining a legitimate claim has been made or not made in a particular case, especially what we're talking about here, is that we do need to make sure these suits are not being filed, but what does that have to do with making sure that every small inventor in this country has to disclose all of the people who are -- and have invested in his company, etc.? no, again, we have an example where the little guy is going to be emass the clerk will designated by this law -- emass the clerk will designated by this law and he has being proposed and the big guys are, of course this doesn't hurt them at all. so let's -- and again, if the public's having trouble understanding that, let's figure out how does taking away

the constitutional right of the small inventor to having a judicial review, a constitutional right he's had since 1830, how does taking that away help in some way get controls under control? how does that do that? no, no. this is a front. this bill is a front just like those business men who had that meeting that i described knew exactly what they were doing. they're creating a demon over here, the troll, in order to what? in order to gain changes in the system that will help these megacorporations defeat the small inventor who's trying to sue them on infringement. that's what's behind this. this is for 25 years i've been sitting here in congress fighting the battle with these same multinational corporations. last s just the next -- step -- the most recent step toward this power grab in

destroying the strong patent system that america has had. the patent system that protects the little guy, as compared to the patent systems in europe and japan, where the little guys are smothered and routinely have their patents stolen from them. let's be real here. ok, we can talk -- patent troll, patent troll, pat troll. and then they put in place changes like this that dramatically damage small inventors and -- small inventors and their rights to protect themselves against infringement. i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i yield to mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for his amendment and i support it and contrary to what the previous speaker said, this amendment does exactly that. it helps to determine more fairly and more quickly whether or not there is a valid patent claim. it requires parties sending

demand letters to wish to pursue trouble damages to disclose their ultimate parent entity. this amendment improves the provision offered by mr. chaffetz and mr. deutch in committee and i support its inclusion in the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you. i would point out that very little of the arguments made by the gentleman from california were related to this particular amendment. much of that was stuff that may have been loosely related to the overall bill. we have with us a co-sponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, i would like to yield the gentleman from virginia one minute. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. conaway: i thank the chair and i -- mr. connolly: i thank the chair and i thank mr. polis for his leadership. i join with the distinguished chairman in support of this amendment. i'm proud to be one of the co-authors. i must say, contrary to what our dear friend from california just said, a lot of small investers have in fact endorsed

this bill because it protects innovators that are being killed off by large litigation they cannot afford. it is precisely the opposite of what was being asserted by our friend from california. that's why application developers alliance, engine, e.f.f. and others have in fact endorsed the bill. i want to commend my friend, mr. polis, for his leadership on this amendment and am glad to join mr. chaffetz and marino in authoring it. businesses large and small are being inundated with demand lets that are essentially amount to an extortion for money based on vegas or even illegitimate claims that a patent has been infringed upon. because the cost of litigation runs often into the millions of dollars, many businesses have forced -- are forced to settle, which is sapping them of money that could otherwise be spent on innovation and hiring. we know that last year for the first time ever, apple and google spent more on litigation than they did in r&d. i urge the adoption of the amendment. i thank my colleague and yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentleman from colorado has 2 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. polis: thank you. i'm happy to yield one minute to a co-sponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. mr. chaffetz: thank you, madam chair. we do this in a very bipartisan way. i appreciate mr. polis, mr. connolly and my colleague, mr. marino, and the chairman goodlatte. this is simple. if you want to help the little guy, if you want to help protect the integrity of the system, you should be for transparency in the legal system. this amendment simply builds upon something that is already in the bill by mandating that claim ants seeking to bring with -- claimabilities seeking to bring willful infringement claims identify themselves. it's about openness, it's about transparency. to be able to face your accusers in the courts and that's all that this does, is to make sure we strengthen the openness and transparency of the system, we think that will improve the system. we've done this in a very bipartisan way. that's going to help everybody in this process. especially the little guy.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from utah yields back. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you. i'm happy to yield a minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania , the original sponsor of the underlying bill that i introduced two weeks ago and a co-sponsor of this amendment, mr. marino. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. marino: thank you, mr. polis. madam speaker, i rise in support of the polis-chaffetz-marino-connolly amendment. trolls assert a claim in a letter with little or no specificity and often it is unclear who owns the patent being asserted or how the patent was even infringed. it is time the entities sending out these mass mailers do their due diligence just as we expect in just about every other area of the law. this amendment requires the entity sending the letter to include the person who holds the rights to the patent, in order to raise a claim that the opposing party received an

adequate letter, putting them on notice of their inge fringe -- infringement. patent trolls have been playing a shell game and hiding who was actually holding the rights to the patent and often who was supplying the money to the litigation. i fully support this amendment and this amendment will shine some much-needed light on this dark practice and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado has 15 seconds remaining. mr. polis: thank you, madam chair. this amendment is important. first, i like the way my colleague, mr. chaffetz put it, the right to face your accuser in court is an important part of our justice system. there's a long way to go with regard to demand letter transparency but this amendment is the first step. i encourage my colleagues to support it and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in . rt a of house report 113-283 for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. massie: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 113-283 offered by mr. massie of kentucky. the chair: pursuant to house 21 -- 429, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. massie: thank you, madam chair. section 5 of this bill shares a common defect with the rest of this bill. although well-intentioned, it will have bad effects on our patent law. in fact, it will affect

legitimate patent holders as much or worse than it would patent trolls. section 5 of h.r. 3309, the innovation act, is entitled customer suit exemption. this section inserts a new provision into the patent code, section 296, stay of action against the customer. the new section, 296, would require a court to grant a motion to stay a patent infringement suit against certain covered customers. while well-intentioned, this section of the bill was not drafted in a carefully and narrowly tailored way so as to achieve its purpose which is to protect innocent customers, i.e., small retail customers involved in patent lawsuits. instead, the broad language of the section would likely insert more confusion to an already complicated process and cause harmful, unsbenleded consequences -- unsbenleded consequences. for example, section 5's weakening of the right to sue

drown stream for the original manufacturer opens a new loophole for corporations to exploit. a huge loophole. it could allow a large computer corporation, for instance, to hide behind third-party chip manufacturers or third-party developers and thus continue to ship infringing products. the large computer corporation could thus construct a shadow shield against injunctions. the injunction is one of the most effective weapons in an individual and independent inventor's arsenal. we should not protect those in the supply chain who stand to benefit the most from stealing patents. patent experts oppose section 5 of h.r. 3309 and my amendment would strike section 5 of 3309. let me tell you what david capos, former undersecretary of commerce, and director of the united states patent and trademark office, said about this bill. particularly section 5. which my amendment seeks to strike. quote, i'm most concerned about

the covered customer stay provision which as written is significantly overbroad. while we all want to help relieve innocent retailers from being taken hostage in patent infringement suits, we should not open up the patent system to abuse by others. who will take advantage of this provision to shift liability up or down, the production creation and distribution chain, to thwart legitimate innovaters from enforcing their patent rights. we should listen to the experts. this was the former undersecretary of commerce and director of the united states patent office. he's telling us that this part of the bill is drafted overly broad and has unintended consequences. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: i rise in opposition to this amendment and claim time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself such time as i may consume. this amendment strikes a key

provision of the bill for retailers, straunlts and grocery stores, among others. this provision is a product of years of discussions with stakeholders and the patent office. this section codifies and provides for the enforcement of the common law doctrine that infringement suit against a customer, retailer or using of -- user of an infringing product should be stayed in favor of a motion against the manufacturing of the allegedly infringing product. customers and retailers typically are ill-suited to protect themselves against an infringement suit. they're often not familiar with the inner workers of the product and have no reason to know whether or not the product infringes a valid patent. suits against such parties are inherently coercive and have become a tactic employed by patent trolls. as an infamous recent example, one troll has begun suing cafe, restaurants and shops that provide wireless internet access to their customers via a router that they bought off the shelf. these small shops have no idea how the router works or why it

infringes and often paid as little as $40 for it and now they're being sued for using an allegedly infringing product and are being asked to pay thousands of dollars. the troll could have sued the manufacturer but chose not to because the manufacturer would vigorously defeblingd fend against the suit -- defend against the suit. coffee shops and other small businesses however are more likely to settle for a few thousand dollars rather than the hundreds of thousands it would cost to fight an infringement suit over technology that the coffee shop did not design or development. . we see the same situation over and over again. another sued because they used scanners and photo copiers. again the troll chose not to sue the manufacturer because the manufacturer understands the technology and will be able to defend against the suit. these types of lawsuits are little more than a shakedown of small, medium, and large business that is simply bought technology and are not the true source of an infringement.

this provision is designed to stay actions against customers when the manufacturer is the true source of any infringement, is a party to a co-pending action. the provision effectively pushes infringement claims up the supply chain to the true source of infringement. the provision thereby prevents harassment and abuse of customers when it is unnecessary for the plaintiff to sue customers. despite federal circuit precedent recognizes the customer suit exception, district courts continue to deny stays of customer suits in a wide array of circumstances where a stay would be appropriate. the stay under section 5 is voluntary. no stay would be entered unless the customer and manufacturer agree that the manufacturer most appropriately bears the burden of defending against the infringement litigation. this is a good provision. it is a key provision, it is an essential part of the bill to protect customers and retailers against abusive suits over technology that they did not design or develop. it is for these and many other reasons that i strongly oppose the amendment offered by the

gentleman from kentucky to strike section 5, and i would point out that former director cappos, seeking pre-manager's amendment version of the bill, indicated a concern that has been addressed in the manager's amendment. we made important improvements to this section in coordination with senators leahy and senator lee. i think that this provision in the bill is very good, and this amendment is not well-founded. i oppose it and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. chair, i yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. conyers: i thank you. i want to applaud the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie. this is exactly what will improve this measure considerably. the language currently in section 5 will not likely curb

abusive patent litigation. it needs substantial revisions to be effective and to remove loopholes which allow manufacturers and others to avoid litigation. striking section 5 of the bill will give patent stakeholders, retailers, customers more time to improve the customer stay provision. i applaud the gentleman's amendment and support it. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: may i ask how much time remains on each side? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from kentucky has 1 1/4. the gentleman from virginia has the right to close. mr. goodlatte: at this time it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, the chairman of the courts intellectual property subcommittee, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute.

7 mr. coble: i support the goodlatte bill and -- this is a commonsense provision that cures ne of the patent troll abuses. against targeting the wrong people. patent ownership should sue the people that made the product not the retailer who sold it or a customer who used it. how is the owner of a coffee shop supposed to now how a router works? i don't know. why would we expect someone who didn't build it to defend a claim it infringes. or this reason a deli in connecticut sports this legislation. aim not sure any patent bill before the congress has won the support of a deli can it'sian. this one does. chairman goodlatte's bill addresses it. i support the bill and oppose the amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: section 5 remains overly broad. the former director of the united states patent and trademark office told me as

early as yesterday that we are playing with fire with section 5. that's why i urge my colleagues to oppose this section 5, support my amendment, only in washington, d.c., would you see the kind of hubris that's displayed here. where we pretend that we are going to protect the innovators. the people that invent in this country, yet we are ignoring their pleas, ignoring their pleas to protect their rights. in this very bill we will take away their rights while maintaining that we are helping them. if you must vote for this bill, please vote for this amendment. this amendment will improve the bill considerably. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized with 30 seconds remaining. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, this amendment will considerably harm this bill and the hundreds of organizations and businesses that have supported this bill because they know how important it is that customers stay, the

common law customer stay be applied fairly across the country. concerns have been voiced that an injunction could not be obtained because of the provision against the party. it expressly requires all parties agree to be bound by any issues deciding the suit against the manufacturer. in other words, if the patent is found valid and infringed, an injunction could also be obtained against any supplier of the product because of this requirement. i believe that this amendment should be strongly opposed. the chair: all time having expired the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. massie: mr. chair, i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. massie: yes, i do. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky will be postponed. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 5 printed in part a of house report 113-283. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part a of house report number 113-283, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 429, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman very much. i rise again to express my appreciation to chairman goodlatte, to ranking member conyers, this is an unusual posture for us to be in. again, all of us are for innovation, love the name of the legislation, but are raising concerns that would be wocked -- worked out or could be worked out with a slower process. again i refer to the constitution and the aging that went on with the constitutional

leaders in philadelphia who meticulously designed how this great government would work. and i noted earlier that they focused on innovation, competition, invan holleniveness. my amendment -- invan holleniveness. my amendment builds on the -- inventiveness. my amendment builds on the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie, an inventor, who i believe we should listen to. he has chosen to strike the section dealing with small businesses or the covered customer issue. my narrowly focuses to hone in on helping small businesses. and my point here on the floor of the house is that we cannot ignore that this bill skews the scales of justice against small investors. my good friend from virginia, as he was explaining it, it was already too complicated. my bill is simple. it expands or provides the

customer -- covered customer to small businesses making $25 million or less. so we are looking for the balance and the compromise that pointedly goes toward small businesses. it modifies that they are protected and their litigation costs are down. under my amendment, the definition of a covered customer is modified to be one who is accused of infringing a patent or patents on a covered product or progressions is -- process and is a small business concern under section 3 that has revenue of 25 million or less. it is well documented that our innovation ecosystem founded on patents started with small businesses. this bill skews the justice system away from them. why would we want to do so? and as the bill is currently drafted, the provision applies to all entities, mom and pop shops at the end of the jane are in essence undermined, legs are going from underneath them, and i know that all of us are

committed to innovation and i ask that the jackson lee amendment be accepted. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: i rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. this amendment offers a reformulation of section 5 of the bill. the provision, however, is the product of years of discussions with stakeholders in the patent offers. this amendment unduly restricts the protections offered by section 5 to customers. the amendment has been presented as protecting small business, but the underlying provision already applies to small businesses. what this amendment does is deny protection to larger grocery stores, charities, hospitals, universities, and restaurant chains that are sued on account of technology that they purchase from others and did not design or develop. this provision would prevent many customers from benefiting from the important protections

of section 5. customer suits against a party that neither manufactures or develops the product accused of infringement are frequent tactics used by trolls because they know that most customers are not sophisticated in patent laws and thus are more vulnerable to extortion. this amendment would eliminate a tool the bill provides to customers to protect themselves from truly abusive patent litigation. and it is for these and many other reasons that i strongly oppose the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: what is the remaining time? the chair: the gentlelady from texas has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: the gentleman from virginia. the chair: 3- 3/4. ms. jackson lee: i recognize mr. conyers for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. conyers: i thank the gentlelady from texas for her amendment, it is an important one because it limits the use of

customer stay provisions to smaller businesses. and this is very, very important. this amendment would improve the customer stay provision by limiting the use of the provision to smaller businesses, those most likely who did not know that they were infringing when they brought and used a modern scanner to -- or fax machine and are most likely local mom and pop shops. so in preventing larger billses -- businesses from use the customer stay provision to avoid litigation, this amendment will also help protect the ability of individual inventors and entrepreneurs to enforce their patent rights. please support jackson lee amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from texas

reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. chairman, at this time i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. marino: thank you, mr. chairman. i have had a rash of people in my office over the last couple months from all sides of this issue. there is no one who supports the intent of my colleague across the ime concerning small -- aisle concerning small business. but there is an unintended consequence here that i think may be overlooked. that is the fact that certainly someone doing business with revenues coming in, gross revenues of 25 million or less, are protected. as they should be. and as it stands in our legislation at this point. however, this amendment could cause a problem where anyone making over $25 million in gross revenues would not be protected. so why complicate the matter?

this amendment that my distinguished colleague wants to put in in tsh-is not required because it is already addressed in the legislation that we have been going over for months and months and months. therefore i do not support her amendment. i support the chairman's bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i think quite the contrary to my good friend from pennsylvania. my legislation responds to the very individuals that we are proclaiming that we are interested in. the small inventors and businesses. and i would offer to say that the opposition to this whole scheme of this bill come from american association -- association of american universities, the institute of electric and electronic engineers, innovation alliance. these are groups that understand there is a problem. these are typically smaller groups. i would suggest that in the federal papers, number 18, it says that we should not skew the

scales of justice to the big and wealthy but protect the weak. and this particular amendment provides for protecting those making $25 million not having them in the crosshairs of the pleading scheme that's in this bill. in the crosshairs of loser pays in this bill. i would ask my colleagues to recognize that david kay pose has not retrenched from his position -- can pose has -- kay pose -- cappos has not retrenched from his position. with that i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady from texas reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, let's use a little scommens here. . r we have a provision in the common law called customers stays which states that a customer can ask to join the manufacturer of the product that it has alleged is

infringing because that manufacturer knows a lot more about how the product was manufactured, what licenses and patents were used to do that. and is best able to defend a claim by a patent troll or by a legitimate ineventualitier -- ineventualitier that the claim is valid or not valid -- inventor that the claim is valid or not valid. what the gentlewoman from texas does is she says that any small business above $25 million, say the local hospital, the local university, the restaurant chain of say 15 or 20 restaurants, same thing for a retail store, a grocery store chain, they can't avail themselves. so what happens? the patent troll knows that there are certain jurisdictions of this country where the court will not issue the customer stay. notwith standing the long historic -- notwithstanding the long historic common law don

doctrine of customer stays -- law doctrine of customer stays. what we say in this bill is if the customer, regardless of the size, and the manufacturer, regardless of the size, both agree, then the customer stay provision will apply and the manufacturer can come in and defend the case. it is eminently fair to every party involved to get at the core of whether or not the patent is a good patent and a valid patent and who knows best? the manufacturer. so this provision in the bill is very important and this amendment is harmful to the interests of small businesses and i urge my colleagues to oppose it. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlelady from texas is recognized with 30 seconds remaining. ms. jackson lee: the club for growth is opposed to this legislation. what this legislation does, my amendment corrects. that's what i want to ensure that we slow this down and make sure that the people who are impacted positively are small inventors and small businesses. this gives a gift to big guys, that can already hammer you

down if you challenge their use of your invention. what this says is the small guys get protected. that means innovation and inventiveness is protected. my amendment is the right way to go. t.s.a. good, solid, -- it is a good, solid balance. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized with 30 seconds remaining. mr. goodlatte: i would just say to the gentlewoman, there's a wide array of organizations. we have a four-page, hundreds of organizations, including americans for prosperity, americans for tax reform, public knowledge, it crosses the spectrum and small business innovators like engine advocacy that the gentlewoman from california put, their statement, a lengthy statement, listing a whole host of companies that support this legislation and one of the key reasons they support it is because it protects small businesses, both the innovators and the people who are the recipients of these demand

letters. i oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to join me in doing so. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 113-283. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 113-283 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 429, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. and the chair. and again, my hope is that we

have the opportunity to continue to work to get where all of us would like to be. but my amendment is very simple it. requires this amendment, the p.t.o. director in consultation with other relevant agencies and interested parties to conduct a study, to examine the economic impact of the litigation reforms contained in the bill, section 3, 4 and 5 of this act, on the ability of individuals and small businesses owned by women, veterans and minorities, to secure and vindicate the constitutionally guaranteed exclusive right to inventions and discoveries. in an essence, it causes -- i think it brings all of us together. to be able to ensure that we promote this body politic of inventors, the people who built america. this is in essence to follow in the constitutional mandate to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors, exclusive rights to their

discoveries. i said the wise persons of the constitutional construct recognized the importance of inventiveness and i have with me a chart that recognizes some of our great african-american inventors, from adam c.j. walker, i mentioned, from the grandville woods, who ineventualitied an advice that allowed for messages to be -- inventors -- invented an advice that allowed for messages to be sent from railway stations. a method for removing eye cat rackets. our famous hispanic inventors others from other backgrounds, pedro flores, the first woman to manufacture the yoyo and our veterans are included in that. many, many others throughout the nation are included in this body of inventors. with that i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: i ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition, although i am not opposed to the amendment.

the chair: without objection, the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, this amendment provides for a study that the u.s. p.t.o. would conduct to examine the impact of the changes in sections 3, 4 and 5 of the bill on individuals and small businesses owned by women, veterans and minorities. the innovation act will benefit all businesses, both large and small, regardless of who owns them, including women, vetsrans and minorities -- veterans and minorities. this bill has received strong support from independent inventors, small businesses, startups, manufacturers, retailers, realtors, travel ent, hotels and even a delacatesan. this will reduce innovation costs for innovators and innovative companies from all across this great land. this will reduce the leverage patent litigation opportunists possess to extort money from legitimate businesses and individuals. this bill not only lines up with our constitutional authority, but our constitutional duty and will help grow our economy, create

jobs and promote the engine of american ingenuity for decades to come. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: will the gentleman yield? mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman -- mr. conyers: i wanted to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks and join in the support for the jackson lee amendment, number 8. it's very important. mr. goodlatte: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: let me thank both the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their kind support of this amendment. may i ask the chairman, the. a amount of time, please? the chair: the gentlelady from texas has three minutes remaining and the gentleman from virginia has 3 3/4 minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much. let me thank them and i just would like at the appropriate time to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the list of inventors that are just

a small measure of those coming from a wide array of diversity. and so in my closing, let me say that we're on the floor today because we do believe in innovation. i ask unanimous consent to submit these documents into the record. the chair: the gentlelady's request has been covered by general leave. ms. jackson lee: thank you so very much. we are on the floor today because we all believe in innovation and my amendment attests to that fact. both the chairman and ranking member agree that we should look into those small inventors that have been the backbone of the american society. and so i would ask again that as we look at the full measure of this legislation, that we also will take that into consideration. in conclusion, i am hoping that my amendment, number 6, will be supported. but in conclusion, i want to take note of the fact that the jackson lee amendment, number 5, will be voted on. mr. massie's amendment will be voted on. we hope that we'll get a strong vote of support but i would

hope that whatever reflection those votes characterize, it no way reflects on the issue of which we are trying to bring forward. members will vote and members will not vote. we hope they'll vote for our amendments. but really what this is all about is to make sure that we do cover and protect that genius that lies across the landscape of america. maybe a 5-year-old that is tinkering with legauxes, is an invent who are needs to be protected and that's the gist of what -- gist of what our discussion and debate. is that's why my amendment, number 6, was offered and number 5. but i yield back and i ask that this amendment be accepted by my colleagues. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from texas yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i again urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in part a of house report 113-283. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. rohrabacher: i rise in support of my amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in part a of house report 113-283 offered by mr. rohrabacher of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 429, the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much. i rise in support of my own amendment which would remove section 9-a from the innovation act. my amendment would protect the american ineventualitiers from -- inventers -- inventers from an incredible attack on their

constitutional rights. by eliminating from this bill, of the 's elimination right for judicial review of the american inventors who are doctor who feel that perhaps they were not treated legally by their applications to the patent system. they have had a right since .836 to a judicial review this is thus -- this has thus been a constitutional right that has been long-time recognized. this bill eliminates that. of course we're out to get the troll. this is, oh, we're going to aim everything, everything's going to be aimed at getting the troll. how does eliminating the constitutional right of an independent inventor, who doesn't have a lot of money, but now he feels maybe he's en mistreated, maybe not legally treated by the patent

office, up until now he's had the right, as every other american citizen, to their day in court. and instead we're taking the little guy and eliminating his day in court, if he feels that he has a legitimate, legal claim that he was not treated legally through the patent system. why are we attacking the little guy? well, we have to get to the trolls. we've got to eliminate -- we've got to make it much more difficult for a little guy to get a patent. we've got to make it much more difficult for a little guy to defend a patent against these megamultinational corporations that routinely infringe on the small guy. now, we know we've heard about the wrong doing of a certain percentage of inventors or people who own patents in this country. let's get at. that but this bill is totally -- it totally undermines and attacks the rights of people who are handling themselves correctly. it makes it more difficult for the independent inventor.

here we are taking away his constitutional rights. now by the way, let me just note, we have -- i've heard mr. goodlatte sing that this would in some way eliminate the regular process of the patent office. that is not the case, mr. goodlatte. the patent office procedures are kept the same in this bill as they have been. the only thing that this bill changes or that your bill seeks to change, that my amendment would eliminate, is eliminating the right of these independent inventors to go to the court and say they made a bad cision based on -- they made an unconstitutionally legal decision on my patent. i would now yield to my friend, ms. lofgren, one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. lofgren: i thank the gentleman for yielding. while mr. rohrabacher and i do not agree on the underlying bill, i do support his amendment. the innovation act would repeal

section 145, the right of a patent applicant to appeal an initial p.t.o. determination in federal court. this is a longstanding provision of law and while it rarely used and even less often successful, i do believe that it poses at least theoretically a hedge against misconduct in the patent office and at a minimum it will help ensure that the p.t.o.'s initial determinations are as meticulous as inventors deserve. i spoke on this amendment and voted for it when it was in the judiciary committee, and i continue to support it. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor and yield back. mr. rohrabacher: reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i strongly oppose the gentleman's

amendment to strike the bill's provisions regarding section 145. the bill's provisions are strongly supported by the patent office. the amendment would strike one of the bill's most important reforms for preventing patent trolls from obtaining low quality patents and bringing extortion lawsuits. the bill's provisions are necessary because the supreme court's recent decision in appos vs. hiatt, to allow an applicant to evade extensive patent examination in the patent osts and instead present his evidence of patent ability for the first time in federal district court. a ditz trict judge would then be required to make de novo findings of patentibility. section 145 is outdated and unnecessary. today applicants have administrative routes for offering new evidence, even after a board decision affirming the examiner's rejections, an applicant can file a continuation application and can introduce new evidence of patent

ibility in that continuation. ever since 1836. the united states has required that all patent applications be reviewed by patent examiners when a scientific education. people who understand the technology that the patent covers. this helps to ensure that patents are not issued for inventions that are already in the public domain. or that would be obvious to a person who is skilled in the technology. under the gentleman from california's amendment, however, an applicant could short circuit the entire patent examination's process and present his evidence of patentibility for the first time in district court. now, i have known many district judges who are excellent lawyers, but very few of them have degrees in biotechnology. very few have degrees in electrical engineering. yet under this amendment these judges would be making the initial determination whether, for example, a purported computer invention is novel and

nonobvious, and whether it has been properly enabled. i would ask my colleagues, is there anyone here who believes that the united states will issue higher quality patents if the applications are never, never, never reviewed by an examiner with a scientific background? does anyone believe that we will have better semiconductor patents if they are never examined by an electrical engineer. will we have better drug patents if they are never reviewed by someone with a degree in chemistry. i would submit that the gentleman's amendment is nothing more than a recipe book for patent trolls to obtain low quality patents, claiming technology that is already in widespread use. finally, we cannot ignore the evidence of who is actually using these section 145 actions. these lawsuits which seek to obtain a patent without review by technically trained examiners are heavily used by infamous patent trolls trying to obtain

patents on computer technology from the 1980's and 1990's. these trolls are still pursuing patent application that is were filed before 1995, when patent terms ran 17 years from when the patent is issued. the most infamous user of section 145 still has hundreds of these applications pending and is trying to obtain patents on computer technology that literally predates windows and apple macintosh. a vote for this amendment is nothing more than a vote to advance that patent troll agenda and allow abuse of the u.s. patent system. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of of his time. the gentleman from california -- the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. rohrabacher: i yield myself -- i yield mr. conyers 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. conyers: i want to commend mr. rohrabacher for what he's doing here.

this is another little guy provision that deserves support because the supreme court has even recently affirmed the expansive breadth of evidence that a patent applicant may introduce in a section 145 proceeding. o i'm for keeping this provision in. i am proud to add my support to rohrabacher. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for the remaining 30 seconds. mr. rohrabacher: would -- permission to -- do i close or do you close? the chair: the gentleman from virginia closes. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: i yield myself 30 seconds. the supreme court disagrees with what the chairman of our judiciary committee says. the supreme court has decided against the very argument that he gave. and the fact is we have, if

someone in this country, an inventor, independent inventor or anybody else thinks they have a claim that a government agency has not treated them in a constitutional and lawful manner, they have a right to take that before a court. this bill eliminates that constitutional right that our inventors have had since 1830's. i'm sorry, this, again, discloses the power grab behind this bill. i would ask for support for my amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized with 1 1 slrn 4 minutes remaining. mr. good lat: i yield myself the balance of the time. the supreme court doesn't disagree with my position. the supreme court is interpreting the current law on the books. a law that's been on the books for a long time. superseded by new provision that is have been added into the patent law that give inventors additional ways to have their patents reviewed if they are

denied by the patent office. so the supreme court's interpreting the current law. what this bill does it it changes the current law because it recognizes that based on that decision it enables patent trolls to do some of the most outrageous things, and cripples the ability of the patent office to actually look at the patent in the form that the law intends. that is by engineers and sigh scientists, chemists -- scientist, chemist, biologists, people who have training and can identify if something is novel or not. that is what the amendment would lop off, it would continue a pathway around the patent office that would allow patent trolls to get low quality patents because they would not be properly examined and continue the problem that we face with patent trolls. i strongly oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have tsm the amendment is not agreed to. mr. rohrabacher: i ask for -- the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in part a of house report 113-283. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8, printed in part a of house report number 113-283, offered by mr. conyers of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 429. the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, and a member opposed each will croel 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. is substitute amendment entitled the conyers-watt amendment. i am very pleased to bring it to the attention of our colleagues

at this time. i'm offering this substitute amendment which -- because it will give the members an opportunity to vote for language that will actually address the ible abuses -- identifiable abuses in the patent system. these abuses include the inability to identify the real party and interest and the filing abusive lawsuits against end users instead of manufacturers of products. these issues are addressed in a measured and balanced way in this substitute. and unlike the reported bill, which makes one-sided changes and fee shifting, discovery, and pleading requirements, and all patent cases, not just cases involving trolls, my -- our amendment directly responds to

the real problems without undermining the patent or legal system as a whole. that's what the thrust of our arguments have been throughout this debate. our amendment builds in large part on a patent reform bill introduced by -- on the senate which chairman leahy in even the present administration and other stakeholders strongly support. the amendment does the following. it promotes transparency of patent ownership by using a well established standard utilized by many federal courts to require plaintiffs to disclose entities with an interest in patent. it protects customers who are targeted in infringement suits by providing an option to stay the case against them while the

manufacturer litigates the alleged infringement. it directs the u.s. p.t.o. to develop educational resources for small businesses that are targeted in patent suits. it helps innovators by ensuring that applicants do not abuse the patent system by simply filing variations on their patents to extend the list of patent reform. our amendment addresses the major concerns expressed by key stakeholders about abusive patent legislation. members on both sides of the aisle in a broad range of patent stakeholders, are strongly opposed to h.r. 3309 because of its many deficiencies and unintended consequences. so rather than promoting innovation and job growth, we

fear that the underlying bill will have just the opposite effect. what we do is direct, many of the bill's deficiencies in a responsive and measured approach without unbalancing the entire patent system. i implore my colleague very strongly to support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: i rise in opposition to this amendment and seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i must strongly oppose this substitute amendment. it is quite simply a poison pill that is designed to kill the innovation act. although the substitute cuts and pastes a few provisions from the current will, it includes additional provision that is create serious problems and excludes whole sections of the innovation act that are vital for america's job creators and

innovators. this substitute does not even include all of the provision of the leahy-lee bill. it omits provision that is are important to our senate colleagues. the amendment's transparency provision would require a patent owner to disclose to the court an and all adverse parties any person known by the patentee to have a financial interest of any kind in a party to the proceeding. the bill then defines financial interest in the context of the judicial recusal provision in the law. under this definition, financial interest means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small. this would clearly appear to include ownership of a single share of stock in a company. moreover, this disclosure is required not just to be made with respect to the patentee, but by the terms of the bill with respect to a party to the proceeding. this would mean that a patentee would have to disclose all known shareholders of even the defendant or any other party in the lawsuit. this is obviously an absurd

requirement. i assume that the sponsor did not intend to require this, but this is what their language requires. clearly the substitute needs more work. instead, the substitute's co-sponsors have themselves admitted that the substitute needs more work and could have serious unintended consequences. this substitute's changes to the bill's pleading requirements would also allow patent trolls to identified their identity, denying defendants the right to know who is suing them. this substitute denies the defendant the right to know what they are being sued on in the first place. this substitute also denies the defendant the right to know why they are being dragged into federal court. this substitute enables patent trolls to create an elaborate web of shell companies that can engage in frivolous litigation, allowing the patent trolls to hide behind them. this substitute would allow a patent troll to engage in abusive and extortion yacht patent litigation without any accountability for the cost imposed on defendants. this substitute would allow trolls to engage in submarine

patenting by delaying prosecution and unreasonably extending patent terms far beyond the 20-year term. this substitute would force u.s. courts to follow foreign law and terminate i.p. licenses for u.s. manufacturers. this substitute would also encourage courts to delay case dispositive motions and prolong litigation. this substitute also allows the issuance of low quality patents by permitting them to issue without review by technically trained patent examiners. this substitute amendment is a poison pill that will kill any chance at meaningful patent reform in this congress. by contrast, the innovation act helps to address the issues that businesses of all sizes and industries face from patent troll-type behavior, and aims to correct the current asymmetry surrounding abusive patent litigation. . first, we are targeting abusive patent litigation behavior and not specific entities or attempting to eliminate valid

patent litigation. when we use the term patent patent, it is -- patent troll it is as an adjective, describing behavior rather than as a noun. our goal is to prevent individuals from taking advantage of gaps in the system to engage in litigation extortion. second, our bill does not diminish or deval patent rights. the patent system is integral to u.s. competitiveness and we have ensured that our legislation strengthens the overall patent system, aligned with our treaty -- international treaty obligations, and comports with the constitution. third, this bill strikes the right balance. pushing for robust legal reform measures while protecting property rights, promoting invention by independent inventors and small businesses, and strengthening the overall patent system. supporters of this bill understand that if america's inventors are forced to waste time with frivolous litigation, they won't have time for innovation. we can no longer allow our economy and job creators to be held hostage to legal maneuvers

and the judicial lottery. american inventors have led the world for centuries in new innovations, from benjamin franklin and thomas edison to the wright brothers and henry ford. but if we want to continue as leaders in the global economy, we must encourage the innovators of today to develop the technologies of tomorrow. this bill holds true to the constitution, our founders, and our promise to future generations that america will continue to lead the world as a fountain for discovery, innovation and economic growth. i stand in strong opposition to this substitute and i urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill, oppose the substitute and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the co-sponsor of this substitute two ent, mel watt, for minutes. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina voiced for two minutes. mr. watt: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the

conyers-watt substitute because the substitute is a superior alternative. the short title of our substitute is appropriately titled "the deceptive patent practices reduction act" because it narrowly and specifically focuses on areas within our patent system where abuses can be curtailed without imposing onerous and disproportion burdens on good-faith participants in the system. and in a number of cases, i believe the substitute will create efficiencies that will benefit all patent stakeholders. our substitute has three core provisions. first, we provide -- require patent holders who sue on a patent to provide transparency of ownership and other financial interest in the patent. this will expose those who seek of ield the true identity the real party with the primary interests in asserting an infringement claim.

second, our substitute reduces the burden on retailers, hotels, restaurants and mom and pop shops that find themselves entangled in legal battles simply for using a product to make their businesses more attractive to their customers. i believe our customer stay provides a better baseline than the provision in the underlying bill. but i also recognize that it too requires further work. finally, the study -- i believe the study required under our substitute sets forth a clearer, more precise definition of demand lets that are will avoid intrusions into legitimate business negotiations. perhaps more important is what the substitute does not do. namely, it does not disregard judicial independence in the courtroom or judicial praguetifics outside the courtroom -- prerogatives outside the courtroom to study, develop and promulgate rules and procedures.

our substitute also does not act with utter indifference to the collateral damage lev idea upon legitimate inventors and -- levied upon legitimate inventors and businesses that this bill will do. with that i yield back and thank the gentleman for his time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i'm pleased now to recognize the senior member of the committee, jerry nadler of new york, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise to support the conyers-watt substitute. unlike the underlying bill, the substitute takes effective steps to address the patent troll problem, without including the unnecessary and dangerous so-called tort reform provisions. the substitute, like the bill, includes provisions providing customer stay exceptions, raising awareness of the small business community as to their rights when confronted with patent trolls and increasing

transparency of patents in the companies that own them. the substitute takes additional steps to address the problem. it includes a studdy of how to address bad faith demand letters which are scaring retailers and others into settling claims based on convenience as opposed to measure ilt. and very importantly -- merit. and very importantly, the substitute does not include the loser pays provisions of the bill. loser pays laws have a chilling effect on justice. they would deter legitimate patent owners with meritorious claims for pursuing justice. in this country, the general rule is that each side in the legal proceeding payses i own attorneys' fees and costs. most of the statutory exceptions that congress has enacted have been geared toward encouraging private litigation, toimplement good public policy. awards of attorneys fees are often designed to help equalize dispute between private individual plaintiffs and corporate or government defendants. thus attorneys' fees provisions are mostly found in civil right, environmental protection and other statutes. the provision in this bill differs from other congressional exceptions in

that it would require anyone who loses a patent claim to pay the attorneys' fees of even large corporate defendants. this is a giant deterrent to genuine inventors from filing good-faith suits to defend their valid patents claims. therefore i urge the adoption of the watt-conyers substitute which would drop the losers pays provisions from the underlying bill while still including the key reforms that are present in the underlying bill and in the senate bill drafted by senate -- senator leahy. i urge adoption of the substitute and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california who has been a great person to work with on the judiciary committee and here on the floor of the house on this legislation, the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lofgren: thank you. i appreciate the time and earlier in the debate i jumped ahead of myself and addressed the issue of pleadings and

discovery costs during the watt amendment about fee shifting. so i'll focus on fee shifting now. the pro vision in the bill is -- the provision in the bill is absolutely right-on. i oppose the english rule generally. but we have created dozens of times instances where the losing party can pay -- let me just read the language. the courts will shift the cost in fees to a nonprevailing party unless the party's position is reasonably justified in fact or law or the fee award would cause economic harm. the question is still with the judicial officer to avoid harm. in terms what have should be in the bill, i mentioned at the outset that i don't believe this bill is perfect. if it were up to me, the bill would also exempt p.t.o. users fees from sequestration. it would clarify the scope of

prior art in the grace period. it would allow the p.t.o. to continue using its v.r.i. standard in postgrant and interparty review. i hope that the senate will address those issues, certainly the managers -- the amendment by mr. watt and mr. conyers does not. it pains me when i have to disagree with my ranking member who i admire so very much. but i do disagree with this amendment. i think it will absolutely gut the bill and i intend to vote against it and i hope that others join me and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr.

speaker. mr. chairman. i rise in support of the conyers-watt substitute amendment. and i must say that this has been a very spirited debate here today. but i would be remiss not to come back to speak on the issue of an inventor such as dennis capitalists, and an example of the person, type of person that this bill should protect. danny co-founded a company, a tech company, down in atlanta that employed more than 100 people and reached more than half the internet audience at its peak. he owned several patents, based on great inventions, and he's got a startup, had the good patents, patent office reviewed and affirmed these patents. but not only were these strong patents, they were also

sought-after by several companies. but rather than pay danny for his innovation and hard work, these companies refused to license his patent. this practice is common for large companies that would rather bully someone in court than license their patent. we are an innovation economy. the drive to create and tinker is what motivates americans to innovate. those innovations should be rewarded and those innovators should be rewarded for their labor and contribution to society. that's the whole point of the patent system. but if this bill becomes law, patent owners and inventors will be unable to enforce their patents without risking personal bankruptcy. i've long supported reform and am a friend of the innovation economy, but today i call on my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino, the vice chairman

of the courts, the internet and intellectual property subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from virginia -- i'm sorry, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. marino: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. i oppose this substitute and i'll explain why and why i support the goodlatte bill, 3309. this bill has been med to thisically drafted with abundant openness and clarity. among other parts of this bill, which there are many, two are extremely important that i see. one is that it protects small business owners, entrepreneurs, young men and women who could lose their business or could lose their. young men and women that may even -- their idea. young men and women that may even be visiting the capitol today. i want to explain what a troll does. a troll doesn't go after primarily larger companies. they go after upstarts they go after young people who are ing to make a profit after

years of work. and they send them a letter and say, pay me x amount of dollars, $10,000, $20,000, $50,000 and i won't sue you. and if i do sue you, we'll go to court and you'll probably go bankrupt because it's going to cost you that much. they're suing people based on using a phone, a scanner and a copier with which they purchase. they have no interest in the software, but yet they're being sued for that. this is good law. we have to get over the fact that -- a fact that the trolls are really taking advantage here. i see my time has run out. it's really going to cut the cost of litigation and get owners to the court on time and i yield back, thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. the gentleman from michigan has one minute remaining. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. rohrabacher: so, we keep hearing about the trolls and, yes, there is some problem with the trolls and sometimes it hurts middle class people.

but we can solve that problem without destroying the rights of our american independent inventors. and they are pleading with us, people -- interest groups around the country are pleading with us, don't go so fast. among those opposing or having expressed serious concern about this bill, and i support the conyers substitute, but i rise in opposition to this bill, those expressing concern about this innovation act, association of american universities, council of education, association of american medical colleges, the eagle form, club for growth, the american bar association, the patent office professional association, judicial conference committee on rules and practices and procedures, our judges are absolutely opposed to this. and yet we get this idea, oh, we'll just take away the rights of the little guy to have his day in court, doesn't make any difference. that's not what our judges say. american intellectual property association, national

association for patent practitioners, and i would ask permission to have this list placed in the record at this moment. please, let's not rush into a move that will destroy our independent inventors and our innovators in america. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's request is covered by general leave. the gentleman from virginia is recognized to close. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself the balance of my time. yes, there's some problem with patent trolls. tens of billions of dollars a year in problems with patent trolls. 55% of all the demand lets that are are september by these patent trolls go to -- lets that are are sent by these patent trolls go to small businesses. there are serious problems that require real patent litigation reform and i'm proud that this bipartisan bill, supported by many members on both sides of the aisle, supported by the administration, and supported by hundreds of organizations that are listed right here, come by the desk and you can see the huge list of organizations, conservatives,

all across the political spectrum, support this legislation. this bill holds true to the constitution our founders promised to future generations that america will continue to lead the world as a fountain for discovery, innovation, economic growth and job creation. i stand in strong opposition to this substitute amendment, and i urge my colleagues to vote for the underlying bill and ield back my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired, the question is on the amendment from the gentleman from texas -- the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the nays have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, may i have a recorded vote? the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part a of house report 113-283 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- amendment number 1 by mr. goodlatte of virginia, amendment number 2 by mr. watt of north carolina, amendment number 4 by mr. massie of kentucky, amendment number 5 by ms. jackson lee of texas, amendment number 7 by mr. rohrabacher of california, and amendment number 8 by mr. conyers of michigan. the chair will reduce to two minutes after the first electronic vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a vote on amendment number 1 by the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by vose vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 113-283 offered by mr. goodlatte of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise

and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 278-

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 341, the nays will 7 -- are 73, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 113-283 offered by mr. watt of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by

the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 199. the nays are 213. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 113-283 by the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 113-283 offered by mr. massie of kentucky. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes

by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 118. the nays -- the chair: on this vote the yeas are 119. the nays are 296. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in part a of house report 113-283 by the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes

prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part a of house report 113-283 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 144. the nays -- the chair: on this vote the yeas are 144. the nays are 266.

the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in part a of house report 113-283 by the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in part a of house report 113-283 offered by mr. rohrabacher of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 260. the nays are 156. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in part a of house report 113-283 by the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment in the nature of a substitute number 8 printed in part a of house report 113-283 offered by mr. conyers of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise nd be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, voter -- a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 157. the nays are 258. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 3309, and pursuant to house resolution 429, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill, so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend title 35 united states code and the leahy-smith america invent act to make improvements and technical corrections, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, on this i ask for a record vote. the chair: the gentleman from michigan requests a recorded

vote. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the passage of the bill will be followed by a five-minute vote on the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 325. the nays are 91. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the nix is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.res. 417.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask that he can to speak out of order for one minute for purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend, the majority leader, mr. cantor of virginia. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from maryland. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative debate. no votes are scheduled on monday. on tuesday, wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. first votes of the week will occur no earlier than 2:00 p.m. on tuesday. on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business friday. of those suspensions, i'm pleased to announce that the house will consider h.r. 2019, the kids first research act, sponsored by representatives gregg harper and peter welch, which has over 2,000 citizen co-sponsors and puts into practice what i hope we will

all agree on which is to place a priority on peed at rick medical -- pediatric medical research. in addition, mr. speaker, there are a number of legislative items which may become available for consideration next week, including legislation pertaining to the sustainible growth rate in medicare, a budget agreement and legislation pertaining to farm programs, including potentially a full farm bill conference report. with that, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. and i appreciate the fact that he's put on there the sustainible growth rate in medicare, budget agreement, which hopefully we can get to that will be bipartisan in nature and will be balance and fair as well. in addition, legislation pertaining to the farm bill is necessary. it's been in conference for

some period of time. hopefully we can pass that as well. i do note, however, with some degree of -- actually, some degree with very great disappointment that unemployment insurance extension is not listed by the leader. as the leader knows, 1.3 million people are going to have their unemployment benefits expire, i believe, on december 28. those people will have no support structure. very frankly, my own view is they will then go on some other support structure. some sort of welfare payment, snap payment, medicaid, which they may be on already, but in any event, it will not be a no cost and c.b.o. says it will cost as much as 300,000 jobs if we do not extend unemployment

insurance. we just had a hearing, mr. leader, where we had three very, very compelling testimony from three people with respect of one whom found a job monday. she was very pleased at that. but not only the economic damage that's going off unemployment will cost them, and they've been looking for jobs, but also the psychological devastation to them and their families that would cause. does the gentleman have any belief? i understand -- i read somewhere -- the gentleman may want to comment on it. there was comment there was no appetite for extending unemployment insurance on your side of the aisle. but can the gentleman give me any idea of a possibility for having unemployment insurance extension on the floor so that we can not see those 1.3 million people dropped off of the rolls as of december 28?

and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i remind the gentleman that the expiration of the benefits that he just referred to were benefits that were passed by this congress ive years ago as emergency spending, as emergency need. at a time in which we were facing near bottom in terms of our economy, the fallout of the financial collapse and those benefits, again, were brought about in those context. i'd say further, mr. speaker, if he would look at the jobs legislation that this house has passed, all of which are waiting action in the senate, the skills act. we had the working families flexibility act. the keystone pipeline. the reins act. the offshore act. energy security act.

veteran emergency medical text tech anything act. veterans economic opportunity act. all of these are measures which the house passed. i think the gentleman would agree with me the best way to address the chronically unemployed is to help them get back to work. and these bills, especially the skills act, was one specifically designed to do that, to help those chronically unemployed to access the necessary skills that they need to enter the job market of today. and i would also further point out, mr. speaker, that this week, december 3, the congressional budget office issued a report in response to a request for the extension of unemployment benefits in which it said that some unemployed workers who would be eligible for those benefits would reduce the intensity of their job search and remain unemployed longer which would tend to

decrease output and employment. this is a congressional budget office speaking on the question that the gentleman raised. and mr. speaker, i would say that such policies, if we were to continue, would lead to greater federal deficit, which would eventually reduce the nation's output in income, slightly what would occur under current law. so i believe we should be focused on how we get folks back to work. that is where the house has been focused. unfortunately, after 140-some bills we passed over to the senate, they still await even consideration at all by that body. so with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment. we need to have the -- we don't have the time nor the inclination of going through the bills which the gentleman refers as jobs bills. of course we have an alternative and mr. van hollen will be talking about that in

terms of jobs, investment, infrastructure, investment in education and growing jobs for our people. but the fact of the matter is, mr. speaker, there are 1.3 million people who can't find a job. to say that they will be disincentivized because we continue to give them some support so they can survive and their families can survive during the period of time that they're looking for a job, there are three people looking for every one job that's available. most of those one jobs that are available have skill sets that unfortunately the unemployed have not had. we are for on this side skills training. we are for investing in education. we share the majority leader's view on that. but it's not going to be much sol is for them, mr. speaker, -- solace for them, mr. speaker, and their families to say, we dropped you off the rolls, you won't be able to pay

your mortgage, you won't be able to put food on the table because the senate hasn't acted. whether the senate ought to act on the bills in question i think is debatable. i opposed many of those pieces of legislation myself, as did others, but we have a crisis and that crisis is we have 1.3 million. and that same c.b.o. to which the majority leader referred said that not to pass this extended benefit will in fact undermine the economy and could cost as many as 300,000 jobs of people who are working now but who will not be working because of the lack of resources of those 1.3 million consumers, whether they're consuming food, housing, clothing, necessary its of life, we're going to be undermining jobs in america and our economy. almost every economist that i talked to shares that view. in any event, i want to make it clear to the majority leader

that our side will be vigorously opposed and will oppose adjourning of the house, as is scheduled, on friday the 13th of this month if in fact we have not passed unemployment insurance. we believe that's a critical thing to pass. we also agree with the majority leader, however, that passing the sustainible growth rate is something that we ought to do before the end of the year. hat will expire on december 31 . the reimbursement of doctors to serve medicare patients will be substantially reduced as a result of that. that is bad policy. not only for those on medicare who are seeking medical services but it's bad policy for the doctors that we hope will -- and medical providers that will serve those people. i'm pleased that he mentioned s.g.r., sustainible growth rate, the doc reimbursement,

but not pleased that we do not have listed the unemployment insurance. we will be very adamant next week that that needs to be done. i understand that we may have a difference on that. i wanted to let the majority leader know that will be our position. in addition, i do not see on there the defense authorization bill. i know that's not the majority leader's -- we passed the defense authorization bill through here. i'm hopeful that the senate will move on that. intelligence authorization. the senate has passed, mr. speaker, a comprehensive immigration reform bill. they passed it with 68 votes. we are very disappointed on this side of the aisle that either the senate bill has not been put on the floor. our bill, h.r. 15, which is a bipartisan bill which there are republican sponsors of that bill, or a bill that has -- one of the bills, one of the four bills that's been reported out

of the committee which was supported by the republican party in the judiciary committee and reported out four bills, they have not been brought to the floor. we believe that comprehensive immigration reform is a critically important action for this congress to take this year, now. we have options available. we would hope that any one of those four -- three options would be brought to the table, or if you count four bills, seven options be brought to the floor. in addition, the senate has passed in a bipartisan way the ending of discrimination in employment. we talk about jobs, we talk about giving economic opportunity. we ought to do that in a nondiscriminatory way. the sflat has passed such a bill -- the senate has passed such a bill. that's not on the agenda for next week either. an agenda which has a lot of bills on it -- make it in america. i notice we do have a

suspension bill on the -- that has been specifically referenced. we'll get into a debate on that next week, so i won't debate that bill today, but we have a suspension bill that we've been urging that as reported out of committee on voice vote, passed this congress with over 350, i think, votes, that has not been brought to the floor which simply says we ought to have a plan and that plan ought to be a plan to expand manufacturing, grow jobs, grow profits, grow salaries for individuals. it's mr. lipinski's bill. i've been urging that be put on the suspension calendar. i notice that has not been put on either. trade adjustment assistance and tax extenders have been referenced. hopefully we could do all of

those. of course, we have a very short period of time left to do that. let me ask the majority leader, given that short time, does the majority leader have a high degree of confidence that in fact he will be seeking to follow the calendar that's been set out by the majority leader to end this first session of this congress indeed on the scheduled date of december 13, and i yield to my friend? mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for the recitation of his desired wish list for what he'd like to see on the floor. i'd like to remind the gentleman, mr. speaker, this house has passed well over 140 if not 150 bills very much focused on job creation, very much focused on trying to make sure that we address the needs of those who are most vulnerable right now, trying to make sure that we can sustain

the safety net while equipping those that are without the tools necessary to get up on that ladder of success. unfortunately, mr. speaker, the senate has just refused to take up most of those bills. . the house has passed and september 189 bills to the u.s. senate so far this congress, and that's excluding what we have done this week. and of those 189 house bills, 41 have been signed into law by the president. 148 bills have stalled in the senate. the senate has so far this year passed only 43 bills this congress, and only -- out of those 43, only 14 have been signed into law by the president. so, mr. speaker, we have done our work. we have got a lot more washing to do on behalf of the american people. one of the things i did not hear the gentleman, the democratic

whip, mentioned was the issue of health care. and obviously health care was been very very much on the minds of america right now, as they witness the utter disaster of a rollout of obamacare. as the gentleman knows, his constituents as well as mine, are faced with higher premiums, faced with the realization now that the president has broken a major promise. when he had said to the american people that they could keep their health care plans if they liked it. and we know now that wasn't true. so people are having to go and figure out what kind of plans are actually there for them. the administration has claimed this week the website is working just fine. we know good and well the back end of that website is not working just fine. i'm glad that people are able, maybe, to get on and see what's there. we don't really know because of the lack of transparency as to

how successful the signups and enrollments are being. we do know, though, that most americans in the individual plan arena are facing higher premiums . those that have had to give up their plans are facing higher premiums, and plans that they don't necessarily choose that they are now forced to have because of the operation of this law. i say to the gentleman, we need to focus on that very issue. what are we going to do? what are the alternatives? we republicans have an alternative. we voted on that alternative back on 2009. and it was a plan that was centered on patients first. it was a plan that the congressional budget office said would reduce premium costs for taxpayers, for patients out there. we have not resolved this question of health care. and there is a bet her way, and i would say to the gentleman we ought to be spending some time focused on how we are going to resolve that for the millions of americans who are very, very

unhappy right now given their options for health care under obamacare. i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i'm not surprised that the majority leader wants to talk about health care because much of that legislation he's talked about, 42, 43, 44, 46 times that the republican party has tried to epeal health care. my view, i want to make it very clear, is that this bill is substantively a very positive bill for the american people. a bill to which the gentleman referred, the republicans offered in 2009, covered less than three million people of the 30 million to 40 million people that had no insurance in america. so less than 10%. recovered by the republican bill. tens of millions of people i

predict by the middle of next year are going to be having coverage and having health care assurance because we passed this health care insurance bill. he's right. the rollout was terrible. we are all disappointed with that. the president's disappointed with that. and it's being worked on. he doesn't recall, of course, perhaps, or hasn't mentioned, the rollout of the prescription drug bill, which wasn't too smooth, either. and of course the health care bill is broader even than that. he may not recall that medicare had a tough rollout for a couple years. but there's nobody on this floor who is saying, i'm not saying they don't believe it, because i think there are people who believe we ought not to have medicare. a former majority leader, not this majority leader, said we shouldn't have medicare in a free society. republican majority leader, mr. speaker. the fact of the matter is the health care bill is going to

work. but it is interesting that when you ask a specific question about some critical issues that have passed the senate in a bipartisan fashion they are not mentioned. why? because that's the politics of the issue right now. mr. cantor: would the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: i would be glad to yield. mr. cantor: it's not the politics, mr. speaker. it is about what people right now are concerned about. they send us here to reflect their problems to try to reach solution for problems they are facing. right now more people in america, i would venture to say, are concerned about the choice they have for health care right now and how they'll seek coverage for their families. and it's not about the politics. there are some things that actually do transcend washington partisan politics. and right now that is about health care. we care about health care.

republicans care about health care. democrats care about health care. and right now this is serious problem given this obamacare law. we need to address that for the people. we need to help people. and that's what i'm talking about, mr. speaker. not talking about the politics of it it. i'm talking about what's on the minds of millions of americans right now as they are losing the coverage that they know and they have chosen and they can afford facing the opposite. it is a disaster right now concerning obamacare. we have got to help the people of this country when it comes to their health care. that's what it's about. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the governor of kentucky spoke to us this morning. kentucky is not the center of democratic politics in america. as mitch mcconnell would quickly observe. thousands of people are signing up in kentucky. thousands of people.

successfully. thousands of people are coming forward. they have over about 70,000 people have already signed up in kentucky. thousands of people coming in new york, in california. all over this country who are saying, i want the assurance and coverage of health care. what have they spent their time on? trying to repeal health care. they talked about repeal and replace. we haven't had much replace. we had a lot of repeal. what does the majority leader refer to, mr. speaker? a 2009 bill. three congresses ago. that he's talking about. and all we have on this is refeel. -- repeal. if we are concerned about health care, then there ought to be an alternative that the other side offers. frankly, mr. speaker, they have not done that. i'll be glad to move to another subject. i'm sure we can go back to health care because the majority

leader, notwithstanding his assertion that this is not about politics, i will tell him that the majority of the american people in poll after poll after poll says they don't want health care repeal. they want it fixed, they want it to work right. they want the assurance it's available for them. but they do not want it appealed. right now even though they are upset, as we all are, as i am, as the president is about the rollout, about the website not working as effectively as we would like, americans right now, i will tell the majority, the majority in polls say they don't want it repealed. they want it fixed. they want to have it work. very frankly i think that's where they are. not everybody. not everybody. i understand that. and certainly not some factions of the republican majority's party. they made that very clear in statements on this floor.

but my view is that we ought not to simply distract from some of the important things that need be done by -- i was interested in senator cornyn's response when he talked about the iranian deal which 65% of the american public says was a worthwhile effort to make, we need to carefully review it. we need to oversee it. we need to make sure it works. the majority leader and i are going to work on that. when senator cornyn said this was just a ruse, i don't think he used the term ruse, just an effort to distract from health care. i think that sort of indicates e extraordinary focus that this issue has energized the republican party on, mr. speaker, over the last three or four years. can i ask the majority leader about the budget conference?

whether he has any idea, he's talked about on the schedule the budget conference coming forward. does he have any idea whether a budget conference agreement has been reached, number one? number two, if an agreement is reached, will it manifest itself in the form of a budget conference report? i am informed, maybe correctly or incorrectly, that there will never be a budget conference report. does the gentleman know whether that's the case or not? and whether or not some agreement might be manifested by a bill and not by a conference report? i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i say to the gentleman that the discussions that i have had with chairman ryan would lead me to some optimism that the two sides actually can come to an agreement. the agreement has not been made. so i don't want it all -- at all

say there is a deal. but i am optimistic that, in fact, this time of year when the differences between the two sides have certainly been on display all year long, that perhaps we could agree that we need to reduce the deficit. we need to do something about the wasteful spending. and that once again i don't think the gentleman nor i think that the sequester is the best method to cut spending. it's indiscriminate. it cuts bad programs the same way as good programs to put it simply. and there are better ways. our side has always said, mr. speaker, that we've got to do something about the mandatory programs, the automatic -- autopilot spnding in the federal government that is disproportionately causing our deficit. and i'm hopeful that next week we can show the people of this country that we can produce something that is smarter than

the way we are going about things now. obviously a big concern to me is the national security and the defense of this country as i know it is for the gentleman. so again i'm hopeful that that will be the case. now, the form that that agreement may or may not take, i think, right now is undetermined. i think it will be premature to even guess at that. and i would say to the gentleman i know that he joins me in hoping that there is an agreement where we can maintain the trajectory of reducing spending, do it in a smarter way so that we can get about the business of prioritizing the expenditure of taxpayer dollars here in this house. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i won't say that he and i, as he has articulated, to agree that the sequester is not good policy. as a matter of fact, chairman hal rogers, the chairman of the

appropriations committee, said it best when he said the sequester cuts are ill-conceived and unrealistic. and that he believes that the house action, as indicated, that that is the case. we haven't done appropriation bills consistent with the sequester levels. that as i understand were agreed at williamsburg to be offered, but they haven't worked. my own view that, mr. speaker, what is being discussed in the budget conference some of the things i have heard strike me as being unbalanced, unfair, irresponsible, and unacceptable. unless we have a balanced agreement, which in my view should replace the sequester because, as the majority leader indicates, it is not the rational way to go. as mr. rogers indicates, not the rational way to go. and as every chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on the republican side, mr.

speaker, have said it is not the way to go and ought to be replaced. so i'm hopeful that any agreement will, in fact, replace the sequester. i am hopeful, mr. majority leader, as you well know, that we will get a big deal, not a little deal, not nibbling around the edges so that what occurs is we do this every six months and we never get to a stability that i know the majority leader believes and i believe would give competence to our economy, to the business community, and to our people if we got a big deal, but unfortunately that does not seem to be, at least at this point in time, in the discussion. i'm hopeful that the budget committee so i'm hopeful that the budget

committee conference will revisit or at least come up with a product that has not been discussed which will accomplish the objective of putting this country on a fiscally sustainible path for the long term, not just the short term. if the gentleman has nothing further to say, i'll yield back. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday next when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?

mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, each morning in africa, women and young girls, like this girl in tanzania, wake up and walk for miles just to collect water for their family. the walk can be dangerous because some wells are controlled by violent thugs. these thugs often assault women and children in exchange for water. often, this water is dirty and leads to sickness and disease. this is unthinkable for many americans, but a reality for 780 million people on earth who do not have access to clean water. we can fix this. that is why congressman earl blumenauer and i have introduced water for the world act. this bill uses existing taxpayer money more effectively to make clean water available to those who need it, such as digging wells in africa.

we have it in our power to help people have clean water. it is something america can and should do. no one should be assaulted when they try to get water. it's 2013, it's time to turn on the faucet and make water universal for little girls like this and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, the president's claim that americans can keep the plans they know and like to me always appeared somewhat misinformed if not insincere. first of all, the law was designed to restructure america's health care system. some, if not millions of americans, were bound to lose their plans. plain and simple, the law was designed to have a large majority of americans give up their health care coverage, pay higher premiums or face a tax

increase. in fact, if millions of americans did not lose their coverage, the health insurance exchanges would be full of high-risk consumers. without healthier populations subsidizing those plans. the president's broken promise are concerning, especially for states dealing with this growing mess. quote -- and i quote, this bandage may provide temporary relief stated the insurance commissioner in my home state of pennsylvania in response to the president's cancellation fix. pennsylvania will continue to see additional cancellations, rate increases and significant problems due to affordable care act-driven changes to the insurance marketplace, end of quote. mr. speaker, the american people deserve better. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. most of us join family and friends over thanksgiving week last week, 2,500 afghan elders voted on a security agreement that could potentially leave

thousands of united states troops in afghanistan for at least another decade. if the afghan people are having a say in continued american troops in that country, at the very least, this congress should also can he bait and vote on any such -- debate and vote on any such agreement. the war in afghanistan has entered the 13th year and the need to bring our troops home is urgent. president karzai has suggested he sees no potential security for an ongoing united states security mission. i couldn't agree more, and the american people have long understood that there is no military solution in afghanistan. especially at a time now when rising income inequality and harmful sequester cuts are hurting families and communities here at home. we need to get our priorities in order and stop spending good money after bad in afghanistan. we have known for years of the rampant waste, fraud and abuse in afghanistan, including bags of cash from the c.i.a. being handed over in suitcases and plastic bags to corrupt afghan

officials. enough is enough. we need to end the corruption and end this war. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the president has offered iran what he describes as a very limited, temporary, reversible sanctions relief. in this case, limited means $20 billion in sanctions relief. what the world -- what was the world promised for the $20 billion gift to the iranian regime? a promise that iran would pause, not dismantle, its nuclear weapons program for six months while we betray our allies and compromise israel's ability to defend itself. let me tell you what this deal is like. it's like going to an auto mechanic you can't trust to fix an oil leak on your car. the mechanic says it will take six months to fix the leak and charge you $1,000 upfront. when you come back six months later, you find not only the

leak was not fixed, but your car was stripped down and sold for parts. they are continuing to enrich uranium and continuing to threaten the safety of the united states and our allies. mr. perry: whether it's at your local auto shop or at the nuclear negotiation table, the american people know when they're getting a bad deal. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate the opening of the kokomo section of the new u.s. 31 corridor. indiana is called the crossroads for america and for great reason. crisscrossing our state and intersecting in indianapolis, our geographic position and transportation network had made logistics in manufacturing critical components of our economy and america. mr. rokita: with that in mind, i had the privilege of attending the ribbon cutting of

the new kokomo section of the u.s. 31 corridor. a total of 32 stop lights will have been removed from indianapolis to south bend saving people a half-hour travel time. they completed this project nearly two years ahead of schedule and so far 40% below the projected budget. i commend and congratulate all of the individuals, elected officials and business and community groups involved in bringing the kokomo corridor of u.s. 31 from the drawing board to reality. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? without objection. ms. granger: mr. speaker, one of the greatest untold stories from world war ii is the story of the brave men and women known as the monuments men.

this special military unit was tasked with helping to locate works of art confiscated by the nazis and return them to their rightful owners. the monuments men and women were able to locate, preserve and return almost five million cultural items including many of the world's great works of art. the day -- today, there are only five surviving members, four men and one woman, of the monuments machine. i believe the veterans who participated in these -- monuments men. i believe the veterans who participated in this is deserving of congress' appreciation. to 's why i'm honored today introduce legislation of recognizing these heroes with a congressional gold medal. while we cannot say thank you enough, i believe the congressional gold medal is a worthy token of appreciation from a grateful nation to members of the greatest generation. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. doyle of pennsylvania for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. wolf: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, earlier this week, a profound three-hour debate took place in the house of commons on the persecution of christians globally. multiple british parliamentarians argued with great passion and persuasion that this is a human rights issue of our day and one which demands great attention on the part of the british government and the west more broadly.

in some respect, it is a sad commentary that such a conversation was remarkable, and yet it was. when was the last time this body, this congress, let alone this administration or the state department spent even a fraction of that time talking about the thousands of people of faith who daily face discrimination, persecution, violence and even death simply because of the most deeply held beliefs? it is worth noting that several weeks earlier the house of commons had a debate on the persecution of christians, specifically in the middle east. there was an overwhelming number of speakers. too many for the allotted time. this week's debate sought to satisfy that interest. in comparison, we have before us relatively modest legislation that has languished

in the senate for two consecutive congresses now, which would create a special envoy within the u.s. department of state charged with advocating for vulnerable religious minorities in the middle east and east central asia. how do we explain the utter lack of urgency on the part of our own government to address the epic exodus, that of christianity, from its very birthplace? the house of commons debated it timely, noise because of the pervasiveness of the problems, but because of millions of christians around the world have just embarked on the advent season in anticipation of celebrating the birth of jesus. a birth marked by its humble beginnings in a small middle eastern time called bethlehem. and yet a british member of

parliament, sir tony baldry, noted with a sad irony, quote, there is now practically no country from morocco to pakistan in which christians can freely practice their religion, end of quote. he continued, quote, there is a severe danger as we start to celebrate the feast of christmas in this country that all christianity will be almost completely erased from the traditional middle east holy land of the bible. mary to uld not take egypt because jesus would not have been safe there today. to follow on sir baldry's line of thinking, the patriarch abraham would also have a difficult time surviving in iraq having come from er, which is now nasiriyah. jonah would be hard pressed to

make it to naviniva, which is now in the most you will area, and paul could scarcely travel the road to demascus in syria. the debate in the house of commons began with a staggering statistic, namely that one christian is killed every 11 minutes somewhere on earth for their faith. one christian is killed every 11 minutes somewhere on earth for their faith. the focus of the commons debate was on the persecution of christians, several noted that whether or not you are a person of faith, all should be concerned by this troubling trend. ultimately, freedom of religion weather for s a bell other cherished freedoms where this first freedom is compromised, the whole human rights is under assault. in country after country,

freedom of religion is indeed compromised and christians, to borrow a phrase from history, are the eye of the gathering storm. this is perhaps no more true than in the middle east. here we see governmental, societal and communal violence and repression against religious communities with specifically targets religious minorities, including christians. these realities have been exacerbated by the so-called arab spring, a spring which has devolved into winter for the most vulnerable in these societies, foremost among them, ancient christian communities. numbering stians eight million to 10 million, are leaving in droves in the face of repression, persecution and violence. they were increasingly marginalized of the muslim brotherhood. .

the situation is fluid. and news reports indicate that islamists are taking advantage of the unrest to target coptic christians. similarly, iraq's christian population has plummeted. churches have now been targeted. believers kidnapped for ransom, and families threatened with violence if they stay. during the debate in the house of commons, cannon andrew white famously dubbed, the vicar of baghdad, as he oversees the only anglican church in iraq, was quoted as saying that christians, quote, are frightened even to walk to church because they might come under attack. all the churches are targets. he went on to say we used to have 1.5 million christians. now we have probably only

200,000 left. there are more iraqi christians, he said, in chicago than there are here. that's amazing. and this body, this congress, this administration? silent. the issues i just outlined must be viewed not simply as today's news but rather through the lens of history. a phrase not often heard outside the majority muslim world is, quote, first the saturday people then the sunday people. the saturday people are, of course, the jewish people, except for israel, their once vibrant communities in countries throughout the region are now decimating. in 1948, the jewish population of iraq was roughly 150,000. today no more than four individuals remain.

an age of the jewish population was much as many as 80,000, now roughly 0 remain. -- 20 remain. it appears a similar fate may wait for the ancient christian community in these same lens. if the middle east is effectively emptied of the christian faith, this will have great geopolitical, and i would argue, spiritual implications. but rather than being met with urgency, vision, or creativity, our government's response has been anemic and at times outright baffling, especially to the communities most impacted in the changing middle east landscape. multiple other countries were mentioned during the house of commons debate including but not limited to china, nigeria, afghanistan, and pakistan. keep in mind the obama pushed ration has not

an for the release of pastor abadini. he sits in prison. his life is endangered. and this administration is silent. it was rightly noted it was some degree of irony that despite the lood spilt in afghanistan by british and american forces alike, not a single church, not a single church remains in that nation. one member of parliament focused on the nation of pakistan where he was born. he said, quote, i come from a muslim background. my father was an imam. when i saw the topic was persecution of christians in 21st century, i knew it was absolutely right and proper to have a debate on that subject.

it is important for the world to realize that persecution goes on. he continued, and i quote, the blasphemy law is at the root of much suffering and persecution of christians in pakistan. and then he specifically mentioned the case of asia beebe, a christian mother of six, who for years has languished in prison and faces a death penalty for her allege crimes. did you ever hear her name mentioned on the floor of the house? did you ever hear her name mentioned at the state department briefing? did you ever hear her name mentioned at the white house? does anybody even know who -- does anyone even care? faces death. death penalty for her alleged crimes. too often when confronted with these types of cases, state department offers unsatisfactory assurances that they, quote, they raise the issue?

during private bilateral discussions. that is if they raised it at all. or perhaps the department issues a quote, bland statement condemning the violence, and then acts as if this is somehow a courageous or principled response to a bloodied assault on innocent human life. this state department and this president ought to learn from president reagan and his state department. president reagan always advocated for those who were persecuted. and secretary baker in the bush administration always advocated. and this administration is silent. quite frankly this congress, ouse and senate, are silent. the suffering church takes little solace in this approach.

nor should we. in fact, i plow foundly reject this tsh-profoundly reject this approach, congress should profoundly reject this approach. and i humbly submit the church in the west should demand more, for if not them, who? with a few notable exceptions, among them the catholic church, specifically cardinal dolan who in his farewell address as head of u.s. conference of catholic bishops beckoned the bishops to extend their efforts to, quote, dramatic frontlines of this battle where christians are paying for the fidelity with their lives, end of quote. too few in the american church are wurded with this point of action for their suffering brethren. reverend martin luther king's letter from a birmingham jail is addressed to -- and everyone ought to read martin luther king's letter from the birmingham jail, it was

addressed to his fellow clergymen. earlier in the letter he speaks of his love for the church. a love that i share. but then he goes on to admonish his fellow clergymen. this is what martin luther king said. i must honestly reiterate i have been disappointed with the church. when i was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in montgomery, alabama, a few years ago i felt it would be -- i would be supported by the white church. i felt like the white ministers, priests, rabbis of the south would be among our strongest allies. instead, some have been outright opponents. all too many others have been more cautious than courageous. and have remained silent behind the exercising security of stained class windows, end of quote. couldn't we not substitute a few

words and be left with a similar critique today? might the imprisoned pakistani christians lament, i thought i would be supported by the church in the west. might the fear for coptic christian cry, i thought the ministers in america would be among our strongest allies. if the church slumbers, washington will scarcely lead the way. do not expect the congress or the administration to lead the way if the church does not lead the way. advent is the season of expected weighty rich and spiritual meaning for believers the world over. my prayer this advent is that the suffering church would no longer suffer alone and that we would stand with them and seek a day when in the words of the beloved christian carol, all

ppression shall cease. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013,, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. as a follow-up to my dear friend, frank wolf from virginia, and the discussions he was having, this needs further emphasis. here's an article from the allas morning news" dated 10 november 2013. the triple tragedy of christian persecution in the middle east. it explains that christians in the broader middle east it seems are in the crosshairs. in september, two taliban suicide bombers rushed all saints church in peshawar, pakistan, as worshipers exited. one exploded his bomb outside. one inside. 82 people were slaughtered. 82 people trying to peacefully attempt a christian church in

pakistan where we are sending so much money. were slaughtered with no consequences coming from the pakistani government that we keep engorging with our money. back to the article, in march it says two churches and about 100 christian homes were ransacked in lahore. today millions of christians and other religious minorities are facing vial persecution. -- vile persecution. many christians are struggling to escape from the countries where their ancestors have lived for two millennia. the human tragedy unfolding in these countries is profoundly disturbing, but the tragedy extends beyond the suffering of individuals and families. next month in rome georgetown university in partnership with baylor university, where i went

to law school, it will showcase the findings of a two-year study on christianity and freedom. three dozen scholars will assemble to discuss what christians have contributed to freedom and prosperity in their own countries and implicitly what will be lost if those countries are emptied of their christian populations. might be worthy of parenthetically inserting that in afghanistan with thousands of americans have shed their blood for afghan freedom, where billions and billions of dollars have been spent, we helped them with a constitution that makes shari'a law the law of the land, that makes the president basically almost a dictator, as some of the regional leaders

have told me, dana rohrabacher, look, if , and others you would just help us with an amendment to the afghanistan we have a shot at staying alive after you pull out . the northern alliance that actually defeated the taliban completely within a few months after we started providing them aerial support, embedded special ops and intelligence, less than 500, they defeated the taliban. provided some weapons. they defeated the taliban. people have forgotten but for years in iraq people referred to afghanistan, even senator obama, that's where the real fight is, that's where it was done well, and it was done well.

the taliban was defeated. it was routed by some of the most incredible and fearless am. ting led by general dust we have people in this administration now calling him and others war criminals because they fought for themselves, their own freedom to rid themselves of tyrannical, radical islamists. they are muslims. they are my muslim friends. . they defeated our enemy. they are the enemy of our enemy. and yet this administration is releasing taliban, one of the taliban leaders that's been on was al afghan television eleased from guantanamo by this administration for humanitarian purposes and the humanitarian purposes are now he's back leading taliban and

making clear that the taliban will control all of afghanistan once the united states pulls out. he likes to talk in terms of how the u.s. has been greatly defeated and that's why we're begging the taliban, offering to buy them things, give them things, if they'll just let us exit gracefully. we are embarrassed around the world. we do not -- we no longer have the world's respect. a lot of countries that have never admired us, tir ran cal leaders have -- tyrannical leaders who have not admired the united states, because we're the only nation that i'm aware of in the history of the world that shed our blood and our treasure for other people to have freedom, that's why they still speak japanese in japan. that's why they still speak german in germany.

we've never been about building some great empire. we've been about freedom. liberty. no other country's done that. no other country's died for the cause of liberty for people they didn't know. and now it seems that this administration keeps committing us to support countries that are persecuting christians, persecuting secularists, persecuting those who don't -- who do not have the strict radical islamist beliefs that the radical islamic believers radical leaders as islamist believers have. this article goes on and says, the countries include egypt, where the holy family fled when jesus was a baby. many christians now are exiting

egypt in the badly misnamed arab spring. in august alone, scores of churches were torched. some of them dating to the fifth century. they include syria, paul's destination, when he was called by jesus. today many syrian christians have fled, fearing the prospects of an islamist regime. one village is one of the last places on earth where the language of jesus is still spoken. in september it was overrun by islamist terrorists. those by the way are the islamist rebels that this supporting. n is it's been publicly reported. this administration, without congress taking a move to stop of has sent tons and tons

weapons to the radical islamist ebels in syria who are killing , raping, torturing christians in syria. as i know a god, with all my heart there is, if the god that had his protective hand on israel until israel stopped honoring the god of abraham, isaac and jacob, if that god exists, as i know in long rt he does, then how will he continue to have a hand that ection on a nation has in the last two years

repeatedly betrayed and stabbed israel in the back, taken whatever actions it could to prevent israel from defending itself? and this last act of ignorance n trying to negotiate with iranian terrorists -- terrorist leaders, who want the little satan, israel, wiped off the map, made that very clear, who want the great satan, the united states, wiped off the map. of course they will talk to the united states. of course. they're working as allies with north korea. and north korea can explain to them, as we talked about here on the floor, how in 1994, they convinced bill clinton, madeline albright and wendy scherman, who was the policy director for north korea, for

the clinton administration, to do a deal where the united states would give them nuclear reactors, help them get them running, fuel, whatever they needed, and in return we were basically asking them to nounce nuclear weapons and promise they wouldn't develop nuclear weapons and we additionally agreed to not be inspecting their nuclear facilities which actually allowed them to develop the nuclear bombs and the ballistic missiles by which they are ssisting iran. wendy scherman actually briefed this congress this week. she is the lead negotiator for the obama administration. as an, that's -- that makes uch sense as an administration

hiring a company to do an absolutely essential, critical website for people's health and well-being, as someone who has no track record of being terribly successful. i mean, surely an administration wouldn't do that. oh, yes, they did do that, with obamacare. oh, yes, they are doing it in negotiating with terrorist thugs who want us wiped off the map. same kind s is the of inane thinking that would have an american president in 1970's proclaiming the ayatollah khomeini as a man of ace, when he was a terrorist and took over a nation and its litary for the first time in

terrorist, that a islamic leader had been the leader of a country. with a powerful military. another article from ownhall.com, december 5, 2013, violence against christians is rising across the middle east. endoors -- open doors u.s.a. investigates for "town hall" magazine. christians in the middle east and around the world are being persecuted, imprisoned and martyred for their faith. there's widespread systemic violence and no one in the mainstream media and government

seems to have noticed. we may see the elimination and extinction of christianity in its very birth place. without a whimper of protest from the west. i got to say, if the god who protected israel in its inception, through many generations, until they stopped honoring the god of abraham, isaac and jacob, which by the way, no country has ever fallen while it was truly honoring the god of abraham, isaac and jacob , so if you were completely areligious, completely eighth yiss tick, but you wanted -- atheistic, but you wanted to have your country protected, it would sound like, from historical purposes, it -- that

it might be a good thing to encourage those who believe in god to keep doing so because when a nation's leaders honor that god, that nation is protected. it's only when it turns away that it falls. but the article goes on, middle eastern christians are not persecuted because they are criminals. anarchists are participating in uncivil behavior. they're prosecuted because of what they believe. they're not promoting any particular political party or agenda. they simply want the freedom of faith and religion that americans experience every day. it's puzzling why most of our media and political leaders remain silent. despite overwhelming evidence of major humanitarian crisis, when the scope of the persecution is seen, it's hard to understand how this could have slipped under the radar of nearly all our leaders in

washington. one is left wondering if the oversight is intentional or merely a giant blind spot the size of the entire middle eastern region. consider what occurred during a four-week period during august and september. syrian rebels attacked a historic christian enclave, damaging some iconic churches while driving out most of the christians as well as other residents. jihaddy terrorists blew up a church in pakistan, taking more than 85 lives and injuring many more. after the attack christians pro tested in the street to -- protested in the street to no avail. muslim brotherhood forces in egypt attacked and burned 73 churches, hundreds of christian-owned businesses, properties and schools. there are but a handful of

attacks that make the news. each day christians in the middle east are suffering all manner of indignities for their faith. those include destruction of property, harassment, targeted rape of christian women, and a legal system that ignores the rights due to their faith. many governments fail to pursue, capture, prosecute jihadist radicals who perpetuate or perpetrate these crimes against christ's followers. and it goes on to talk about a broader pattern, leadership in a vacuum. article from crossmap.com says, one christian killed every 11 minutes. the u.k. parliament is told christianity is, quote, the most persecuted religion, unquote. says, the polite of christians

around the world -- the plight of christians around the world was discussed in a three-hour debate at the houses of parliament in london yesterday. members of the house of common sense were told that the persecution of -- commons were told that the persecution of christians is increasing. that one christian is killed around every 11 minutes, around the world. and that christianity is the, quote, most persecuted religion globaly, unquote. a long list of countries in which life as a christian is most difficult was discussed, ncluding syria, north korea, nigeria, iraq and egypt. m.p. shannon said the persecution of christians is, quote, the biggest story in the world that has never been told, unquote. he said that although the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights,

there are many countries in which these rights are not given. he alleged that 200 million christians will be persecuted for their faith this year. while he said that 500 million live in dangerous neighborhoods. he added that in syria, christians are caught between opposing sides in the conflict. and mentioned the specific targeting of christian-dominated locations such as certain towns. m.p. sammy wilson said that in syria, quote, 50,000 christians have been cleared from the city of hams, unquote, while in sudan, two million christians were killed by the regime over a 0-year period. -- 30-year period. he added, within the last month, hundreds of people from nigeria to kazakhstan, to china have been arrested and put in

prison simply because of their faith. when they go into prison, they are denied due process. they are denied access to lawyers, they're simes even denied knowledge of the charges facing them. they can languish in prison for a long time and in horrible conditions. this is not only happening in muslim countries. from morocco to pakistan, christians in muslim countries are under threat, but it happens elsewhere too. . an article from religious freedom coalition from october says, wednesday evening senator john mccain was on "nbc nightly news" and was asked what he thought about congressman louie gohmert suggesting that he was supporting al qaeda-linked groups in syria. to this mccain responded that he considered representative gohmert to be a, quote person of

no intelligence, unquote, clearly suggesting that gohmert was dimwitted and not worthy of dealing with. in responding to mccain's attack , gohmert issued the following statement to the media, quote, obviously senator mccain would be better off with no intelligence since he doesn't know that the syrian opposition he met with is invested with al qaeda and terrorist kidnappers. his intelligence even caused him to support the muslim brotherhood in egypt that burned churches and killed christians. even as the senator stood against the will of the massive majority of egyptians, including moderate muslims, christians, and secularists who nanded the muslim brotherhood extremist persecutions must end. i want to adhere, this administration has supported the muslim brother leadership of president morsi in egypt while

christians were being persecuted and as the largest arising gathering of people in protest in the history of the world, rose up in egypt and demanded an end to the radical islamic rule of president morsi after he had vastly exceeded repeatedly the constitutional powers, and as they have told me, my last trip to egypt, unfortunately the constitution that we should have helped them do a better job with did not include any provision for impeachment. can't understand why the obama administration would not have encouraged a country developing a new constitution to put in a provision for impeachment. don't know why this administration would not have encouraged that. but it wasn't there. so when president morsi vastly

exceeded the authority of the constitution and began moving toward being a monarch, millions of people reported 20, 30, 33 million egyptians rose up. 90 million people in the whole contry. they rose up and demanded that the president be removed. the christian pope in egypt told me personally, he said, this was the will of the people. please tell the administration and people in america this was coup. this was the people of egypt rising up. as he talked about arm in arm the moderate muslims, secularists, christians joined hands, joined arms and protested

and demanded that the military remove president morsi. and they did. and as these articles have talked about, the violence in august, the violence in the summer against christian churches, 73 or so burned down, christians killed and tortured, that was by the muslim brotherhood. and because the people of egypt and the military could see the persecution of christians and they nted to stop it, basically disbanded the muslim brotherhood as a party, as an organization in egypt, and the burning of churches stopped and the persecution of christians stopped. and to such a great and noble thing that the egyptians have done in bringing an end to this radical islamist muslim

brotherhood control of egypt and bringing an end to the burning of churches, bringing an end to the killing, torturing of christians in egypt, how has this administration reacted to reward egypt for doing such a noble thing? the aid that this administration was providing to egypt when it was controlled by the muslim brotherhood has now been cut off because the egyptian people had the temerity to demand an end to radical islam rein -- reign and the killing and persecution of christians. it's unbelievable that i live in a country that rewards groups and persecute christians

with -- and withdraws assistance to those who stop persecution of christians. is article says, of course mccain is doing exactly what someone who has been busted usually does, smears his accuser. why else would mccain defend the likes of durbin while accusing gohmert of having no intelligence? the answer is that gohmert is doing what no one at his level or higher is doing. he's calling mccain out for siding with america's enemies. those were comments of former p.l.o. terrorist sha bad-- shabad. he has seen the light, ended a life as a terrorist, and is trying to educate people on the angers of radical islam. anyway, the article points out that our friend, senator mccain,

had hired syrian islamist propagandist elizabeth to become one of his legislative assistants after she was exposed for lying about her ph.d. and being paid shill for islamists seeking to overthrow president assad of syria. as former terrorist shabbat explains, congressman louie gohmert should be getting reinforcements from the more conservative elements of the republican party but we doubt it. congressman deserves our praise, vocal support, and prayers for having the courage to hold another republican responsible for promoting national security policies that endanger lives and freedoms of millions of syrians and egyptians who do not wish to live under a islamic dictator. i appreciate their commendation. i note that there is not a

senator in the u.s. senate that wants to do harm to this country or to christians around the world, but that is why it's so important to take a look at what this country, this administration's policies are doing to the cause of persecution of christians around the world. an article from christian today dated wednesday, december 4, 70 christians killed at the hand of nigeria.rorists in bringing the total number killed in the past year to an estimated 900. according to release international, 34 christians northeast d in the digsal 37 and later a

were killed on 26 november. church leaders believe the attacks in the north were carried out directly by islamic terrorist group while those in central nigeria were carried out under their direction. it is tragic what is going on around the world right now in the persecution of christianity or as the u.k. parliament was told, christians are the most persecuted people in the whole world. in fact, even in the united states right now, really christians are about the only group in america against whom it's ok to discriminate. it's ok to hate them and ascribe

in the the believers man of love and peace in jesus christ. it's rather tragic. as the world sees that this administration continues and its leaders in the middle east told a handful of us back in september, what do you not understand? it was the muslim brotherhood behind the attack on 9/11. of 2001. it was the taliban, but basically the muslim brotherhood in afghanistan. you went to war against. the muslim brotherhood that was killing christians in egypt. it was the muslim brotherhood, al qaeda, that attacked you in libya. that you helped in libya. and now you're helping them in syria? we all don't understand what you

don't understand, the people you declared war on that hate you and want to destroy you, you're supporting in syria. you supported in egypt. we don't understand. and for moderate muslims around the world, our friends in afghanistan, our friends in the middle east, they don't understand it. how we keep rewarding those who hate christians and hate the united states. and we persecute leadership like in egypt right now that stopped the persecution of christians. we ought to be sending people rushing over to egypt saying, thank you for stopping persecution of especially christians, but also moderate muslims and secularists in egypt. you have done a good thing. we ought to be helping them set up their next elections, which they want to do.

so we are also, as i'm sure people are aware, cnn's got a story here about china claim of air rights over disputed islands creates risk of incident. china has wanted to claim this part of the ocean for decades. but they were always afraid of making a move to physically exert claim over this area of the blue water. and yet they obviously have come to believe that the united states is so weakly led right now that they could make claim that part of the sea they were scared to claim in the past and overtly take control over.

it hurts our friend, japan. it hurts other allies for us not to take a stand. yet we get reports that this administration is telling our allies, well, just do what china requests. for now. just do what they request. instead of showing strong aadership to stand up against move of aggression. more russia moving radically than we have seen in decades. people just thought russia had gone away. the soviet union did go away. but russia now has perceived a vacuum in world leadership since the united states seems to be taking a leave of absence. and now we have putin being considered more powerful than

our u.s. president. well, i can see how some would see the aggressive leadership he has taken and believe that he is more powerful. it's not right. our president has all the power he needs if he would use it. but it's time to take a stand even for those who like to , even e christianity those who have far different beliefs, this nation has had an invisible protective hand that has guided it, led us away from slavery, led us to proper civil rights, and then it seemed just when we were about at the peak soenforcing our constitution

that it didn't discriminate, so that the words of the declaration of independence were fully embraced, that we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights and among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . and yet as churches have been behind the movement to establish a constitution, the movement to eliminate slavery, the movement to recognize civil rights, so people are not judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character, as was the dream of dr. martin luther king jr., an ordained christian nister, now we have turned full circle and now are starting to persecute and

eward those who have persecuted the very churches that made america the freest country, the only country that has fought and died, that people have fought and died for, liberty of others, the most generous and giving nation in the history of the world, where more freedoms, liberties and assets have been attained by individuals than any country in the history of the world. it is exceptional. but we're losing our exceptionalism because we're refusing to stand up for the beliefs of christians here and around the world. and it's time, if we want to extend this little experiment in democracy, as one of the unders said, if we want to acknowledge ben franklin's comment, it's a republic if you

can keep it, if we want to keep it it's time to rise up, not do violence, but just stop rewarding those who persecute christianity. those who burn churches. those who kill christians. quit rewarding them. uit providing them arms. because if we don't, we will slide of history into the dust bin of history and people will only be able to look back and say, what an amazing country that once was. i'm here in congress because i believe we have the chance to salvage this great country and get back our international leadership we once had and stand for freedom of religion in the world and in america. but, god help us if we don't. mr. speaker, i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: at this time i would move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until noon on monday next for

house coverage when members return on monday. john boehner reiterating today that we will be the chamber's december recess. he is hopeful on reaching a an agreement with the budget. this is his weekly briefing, 10 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. easterday president obama gave a speech about all the problems in the economy under president obama. it was a clear indication the president himself believes that

his stewardship has been a failure. there's no doubt that under president obama our country has fallen to what i will call a new normal, high employment, stagnant wages. on president is more focused increasing reliance on government programs than pro- growth policies that will create more american jobs and benefit american wages. republicans continue to focus on strengthening the economy for middle class families. that is why we passed nearly 150 bills in this congress, and many of them will help our economy. they are sitting in the senate. sitting in thel senate. senate democrats and the president continue to stand in the way of america's rarities. the president pot health care law -- the president's health aw continues to wreak

havoc. people are losing the dock there's -- the doctors that they have continually relied on. to make matters worse, taxpayers could be on the hook for millions of dollars of fraud. this week the white house announced it will not even whetherto verify individuals are eligible for subsidies. instead, the white house will give taxpayer dollars to the insurance companies and hand out these subsidies under a so- called honor system. so they are a century telling taxpayers trust us. you will not lose a dime. i do not know why any american would trust this government after all the broken promises they have already seen in obamacare. americans have every right to be concerned about this fundamentally flawed law. house republicans will continue to listen to the american people and to follow their priorities.

before the break you announced [indiscernible] despite all the flaws -- >> and the three or four hours i tried to sign up. >> your speakership is four years old. why not pay the penalty and wait a year? >> the thought has not crossed my mind. my premiums will double. my co-pays and deductibles -- underder obama cut obamacare. i'm thrilled to death. >> and what about the dropdead deadline? [indiscernible] ok, we might have to do a cr -- also in the farm bill, if you have to say maybe just do a dairy extension. what is your deadline with those two things?

paul ryan andl patty murray will come to a budget agreement that can pass both the house and senate. paul ryan came in today and gave us an update on where they were. i am hopeful it will be able to work this out. there's clearly no agreement. on the farm bill, i have not seen any real progress on the form bill. pass a one- have to month extension of the farm bill, i think we are prepared to do that. >> [indiscernible] chairman let the answer that question, but all of it would be extended for a month. i have made it clear that the house is going to leave next friday. you all know me pretty well. i mean what i say and i say what i mean. >> a few blocks away from here there are families doing fast for families about immigration

reform. there have been children of immigrants who are protesting in members' offices. will the house gop allow for him immigration reform will to go to the floor next year? you guys are making a moral argument on this issue right now. >> i have talked for 13 months since the day after the last presidential election about the need for congress to tackle this very important issue. i have been committed to it, and i am still committed to it. i have made clear that dealing is aa 1300 page bill nonstarter for us. we are going to try to do this in a commonsense, step by step approach. i have members on both sides of the aisle who have been working together diligently to delay out a process for dealing with this very difficult issue in an upfront, straightforward, commonsense, step-by-step approach. >> do you expect it will be done in 2014? >> i have learned a long time

ago from this podium not to make predictions. in 2014, how old you expect the agenda to be, whether on jobs, health care plan, real alternatives -- what do you want to see on the floor? >> the biggest concern for the american people is the economy. we are not creating enough jobs. we are not creating higher wages. i would argue the president poss policies are getting in the way of our country growing. that is why the house has passed all these bills this year focused on getting the economy moving again. and so our number one focus will continue to be on the economy. secondly, i would say our focus also has to be on protecting the american people from obamacare. we have passed bill after bill trying to protect the american people from this disaster. whether it is the repeal of the

bill, a one-year delay of the --ividual mandate, whether there's a whole long list of bills we have passed, all rejected by democrats in the house and senate. protecting the american people from obamacare will be and other priority. >> mr. speaker, why do you oppose extending the additional weeks of unemployment benefits that have been awarded the last several years? >> president has a plan for a sitting -- for extending an opponent, i will take a look at it. his real focus should be creating a better environment for our economy, and creating more jobs for the american people. that is were the focus should be, not more government programs. >> you feel that murray and ryan -- >> is that the reason i did not shave today? >> bringing discretionary levels thee sequester levels and

offset of the cost of that, is that something you can accept and do you think the republicans in conference will accept >> i am hopeful chairman ryan and senator murray will come to agreement. i have not seen anything. >> what advice do you know the republicans give your members when they're going up against women candidates, when they are trying to appeal to women voters >> i get them to be more sensitive. i am looking run the congress, there are a lot more females in the democratic caucus than in the republican caucus. some of our members are not as sensitive as they ought to be. >> you think you're making progress on that? >> i do. >> [indiscernible] , if he has aent proposal, i will get it? >> but what do you think about it? >> talk to the chairman of the ways and means committee? >> do you support the party

apparatus supporting them in money and in name? >> i do. democratic leaders will be detailing today the authority the president has. do you believe or do you think the president has that authority, and if he were to do that, how will that affect things here in this congress? president has an obligation like i do when we take an oath to uphold and defend the laws of the united states. and if the law is clear that people are violating the law, he should not receive the punishment that is outlined in the law. report theker, a other week that premiums for military raised somewhere compared toand 19%

those in the private sector. and yet you guys go ahead with this eel that ryan was talking this will be held harmless because of sequester cut in 2014. why not -- >> i think everything is on the table in these conversations, as it should be. thanks. >> [indiscernible] him him him >> john boehner earlier today.